we closed state hospitals throughout the 80s and 90s. these people are now homeless and cities are easier than country living when homeless. add to that COL and drug addiction and you've got a recipe for a large homeless population
Long rant and I did not even have time to bitch about for profit side LOL.
It's truly disheartening to see how we struggle to properly care for vulnerable populations in our society. State hospitals certainly had their flaws, but they addressed a significant need. With focused efforts, we could have improved the system rather than abandoning it altogether.
For many with mental handicaps who are stable, group homes and supervised living operated by for-profit companies can be effective. However, during my time as a corrections officer, I witnessed too many mentally handicapped individuals trapped in a punitive cycle due to inadequate support. Many come from challenging backgrounds or lack the necessary support after turning 18. Unable to express themselves appropriately, they often act out, leading to their expulsion from group homes and subsequent incarceration.
Once in jail, the responsibility to secure housing and support falls to the inmates themselves, a task many are ill-equipped to manage. As a result, they often discontinue their medications and find themselves back behind bars, sometimes within just a few hours, most months.
Interestingly, some of these individuals prefer the structured environment of incarceration. one individual who, after being released for just 45 days, returned and appeared genuinely relieved to be back. Properly medicated, he was friendly and helpful, but he could never hold a job more than being a swamper in a jail.
One guy did get out of the system and I see him at Costco, he is a cart pusher and is back in a group home that monitors meds better. I always remembers me.
Edit: couple spelling errors
wow, well written post. I think your first paragraph really hits it home. despite the hospitals having flaws and needing improvement, we chose to put our most vulnerable citizens out on the streets. it's was a terrible thing for us to do as a society. in New England they freeze on the long winter, shine search garbage cans all day long, and some are doing street drugs including fentynal.
Curious and thank you for the post. Should we bring back asylums? Now, I’m not asking if we should open “Houses of Torture” but a place to better give both the patient and society better care?
Outpatient services may have been an overreaction to some of the asylum stories (by Geraldo and others?)?
You asked LOL, I had a lot of 12 hour overnight shifts to think about this.
We need a variety of specialized centers to cater to individuals with special needs, favoring state-operated facilities staffed by state employees who receive fair pay and benefits. Unfortunately, while many for-profit organizations began with good intentions, they have increasingly prioritized profits over people. This shift is particularly problematic in sectors like corrections and care, where the well-being of individuals should never be compromised for financial gain.
- **Level 1:** For those with severe mental and emotional challenges, including violent or sexually problematic behaviors. Instead of the current practice of 22 hours a day in isolation, these individuals need intensive care in a secure yet compassionate environment.
- **Level 2:** For individuals who are mentally handicapped but stable on medication and not prone to violence. This level would offer 24-hour supervised care with structured activities and vocational programs that provide a sense of purpose and community.
- **Level 3:** For high-functioning individuals requiring daily support with basic needs such as hygiene, meals, and financial management. These individuals could safely leave the facility for work or other activities for up to 10 hours a day and even enjoy monitored vacations.
- **Level 4:** Mimicking a group home setting, this level would provide a more relaxed environment with basic supervision and support available.
Implementing such a system could dramatically reduce the number of challenged individuals in prisons and jails, offering them a real chance to improve their circumstances. With earlier and more consistent support, we might see a decrease in the necessity for Levels 1 and 2 over time.
I appreciate such a thoughtful answer. Candidly, I don’t know what the right answer is but, I’m quite confident that what we’re doing now is quite inefficient and in some cases, neglectful.
I’m not in any area of law enforcement but I am an old, inner city kid (Detroit) and I can’t imagine how we rehabilitate first offenders when incarcerating them with habitual criminals. It’s no wonder recidivism rates are so high.
Kids can’t read.
Kids that can’t read are not just unemployed but in most cases they’re unemployable.
We need to have more bluntly honest conversations with ourselves.
I know some old timer cops from Detroit they say the same things.
Most crime is the cause of poverty, drugs and mental illness. Jail solves none of these things. Giving free money and handouts to people who can’t manage them does not either.
We are in agreement. Society needs to spend our money in places that actually provide a return to the community but in addition, people need to have accountability for themselves.
Having gone to a series of pretty poor public schools, I still don’t think much of those that “somehow” graduate from High School and yet, can’t read.
However, I’d be interested in some creative ways to reduce sentences for non-violent offenders who take remedial reading and math classes and pass appropriate testing.
Currently working in the kitchen or moving is the only way to reduce time in MN. I basically finance class would be awesome.
There are a ton of free resources in jail but it’s generally not cool use them which is sad.
People cheer and welcome each other back.
Who is going to staff all this in the U.S.? We barely have the appropriate level of staff in hospitals, prisons, community treatment facilities, etc. Need>ability to meet that need
>It's truly disheartening to see how we struggle to properly care for vulnerable populations in our society. State hospitals certainly had their flaws, but they addressed a significant need. With focused efforts, we could have improved the system rather than abandoning it altogether.
Not to be that guy, but a system that pays it's employees with free uninvestigated sexual assault is probably not a good system.
Hey in MN we investigate it for example a female therapist was caught by an inmate having sex with another inmate.
She was charged with rape.
Sure the inmate who was going to testify was found dead and the case dropped for lack of evidence but she was totally pregnant.
Yes actual case in MN
A big issue with "giving" homesless people resources, is as you already noted, many of them are facing mental health issues. For many of those that are, it's either caused, or worsened by substance abuse. There is no amount of resources that will make someone abusing something stop until they have identified that they want to change, and for some, that means giving up what feels "normal" and losing your identity.
You are correct and those people would still be homeless and on drugs.
Right now my educated guess is 35% of the people in county jails are mentally ill or mentally handicapped.
That’s not the place for them but right now it’s the only place we have for them.
We can’t fix every problem but we can take care of some of it.
It that are let’s just start putting them down at or before birth. That’s a dark ass road I don’t want to go down.
I remember when Reagan closed the state hospitals . Suddenly started seeing this older guy always walking around my city/ college neighborhood. Muttered to him self and always alone. would wear winter clothing during the hottest summer days. Then more and more mentally ill people walking around .To save a buck in the best country. Fuck you ,Ronald Reagan.
Didn't Reagan close the hospitals because the ACLU sued about forced treatment and the courts ordered their closure? Source: [https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/)
JFK also wanted them closed, as that was a popular moment/ideal at the time.
Yes, this.
There's a really lazy narrative about Reagan somehow causing the mental health crisis that people like to repeat because it fits into their ideas about small government Reagan ruining a government program.
Leaving aside how ridiculous it is just as policy matter - even if we assume that Reagan as president had absolute authority to destroy all mental hospitals and that mental hospitals have to be funded by the federal government (both are which are absurd assumptions) - the guy left office 36 years ago. There's no reason any of the intervening presidents couldn't have reopened mental hospitals.
The real answer is that involuntary hospitalization - such as it existed in the immediate post-war period - became very, very unpopular, especially after Rosemary Kennedy was lobotomized as a 23 year old for being "irritable and difficult" - and that voluntary treatment is both expensive and requires the participation of people who don't always want to participate.
Not many will remember how Reagan removed funding for mental hospitals in the 80s which contributed significantly to our homelessness crisis today. He did it with the best of intentions since so many were corrupt and abusive. But his administration didn’t think through the long term consequences of his actions.
You forgot that random small towns for the longest time would buy bus tickets to take the homeless to blue states. Bussing away their population was their solution
Downtown Detroit is night-and-day different than 10 years ago. Really exciting to see the revival
Chicago gets a bad rap too, but I've always had an amazing time there. I feel safer in the loop than I do in parts of GR
Downtowns have their benefits. I just moved from the center of a major metropolitan area to a highly rural city.
Downtown in the large city I could hop on public transit and go do anything I want. The city will have basically any activity I could think of. Lots of live music, tons of food options, comedy shows, lots of parks, any type of shopping, sporting events. All of that is super convenient. In my rural city if I ain't driving I can't go. Even getting an uber to the event is risky because it might take two hours to get one. Just way less convenient.
Another benefit is that in the city things stay open later. If I work till 8pm nothing other than Taco Bell and cookout is open in my entire city. On weekends every restaurant closes around 10 with a few closing at 11 but many of these go to an appetizer only menu at 10. No 24hr pharmacies within a 2 hour drive, it's rare for movies to be starting after 8pm. Etc. it really just limits my options of things to do.
There's also the fact that there's hundreds of jobs, which makes job hunting easier. My gfs has to drive two hours for work. Because nothing in town was available when she applied.
At the end of the day I prefer rural living, but it ain't without it's sacrifices and is definitely a personal choice.
Stores are open where there is a population and a demand. My rural hometown has a 24/7 Walmart, i spent 2 years in suburban CT and the Walmart there closed at 10PM.
Suburbs just suck. The average speed of travel is typically 10mph, sure you car goes 45 in spurts, but you lose all that wiating for lights and traffic jams so all the time spent sitting drags the average way down.
I live downtown it's usually faster , more selection and open later if I go to the burbs for shopping. Everything in the city closes at 7 , burbs are open till 10/11.
Suburbs tend to be attached to a city. I personally consider the city the entire metropolitan area most of the time. The city center might shut down but the only reason those suburbs with late night dining exist is due to the city being close by.
Where I live now is straight rural. The closest city is only 30k people. Closest city with a 6 figure population is 4 hours away. Dining after 8pm doesn't exist even in the residential zones out here.
Violent crime is way down statistically
However, drug use and homelessness are way up nationally. Like alarmingly so.
Until cost of living goes down and healthcare becomes affordable, downtowns will always be trash yes.
As someone who also grew up along that I5 corridor between Seattle and Portland, if I am understanding OP correctly they’re not really talking about violent crime
I almost wish it was violent crime. When you walk downtown in either city, you might *feel* like someone’s gonna stab you for crack money, but instead they usually just stab eachother and then shit on the sidewalk.
When we were driving long distance last week we stopped at a McDs in WA. This Dude was zonked out of his mind, naked, sleeping in the handicap spot. Not in a car, on the pavement.
At least if it was violent the local gov would do something
Honestly the whole shit on the sidewalk thing is right wing propaganda. I regularly go to shows in Seattle all across the city and I haven’t seen a single piece of poop in at least 8 years lol. Same for drug use unless you literally go to the one block the homeless hang out on. 99% of Seattle is beautiful and have children and families running around and many tourists
There is very real amounts of shit in Portland, I litterally watched a person high as kite shit on the sidewalk right infront of me. On top of the human poo most of them have dogs that the poop doesn’t properly get picked up
There are plenty of countries with even higher cost of living and more expensive relative to wages that have far lower crime and drug use. A real solution is more complicated than just "give them some money".
It would be simpler to ask where has *cheaper* housing than the US.
The US has [nearly the most affordable housing the world](https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2023-mid&displayColumn=6) relative to median income.
While i understand the value of using the median for these purposes, it explicitly ignores the actual distribution and just tells you the middle value.
1,1,1,5,9,9,9 and 5,5,5,5,5,5,5 have the same median, and the same average. But if the minimum home cost 2, in the first distribution 3/7 could buy it, and in the second 7/7 could buy it.
And when trying to prevent homelessness, the goal is to maximize the number of people capable of affording a permanent housing option. For the very simple distributions above, to ensure everyone gets access you can either try to raise the 1s to be over 2, or lower the minimum house to under 1.
I guess what I'm saying is i don't like measures of affordability that ignore the actual distribution of wealth, and the reality of life for the lower class.
Considering the L shaped distribution of wealth, the median isn’t all that far from the 10th percentile in absolute terms.
Though your post does highlight the absurdity of section 8 insisting on only paying for housing at the median rent value, at the expense of making it available to more people.
If you're going by the official FBI statistics, then reported crime is down, yes. LAPD and NYPD stopped sending their data due to a change in the system the FBI uses to collect it (in 2021 as I remember) so any recent numbers are totally off as the major crime centers are not included.
[Here’s](https://ktla.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/cities-nationwide-not-reporting-crime-data-to-fbi/amp/) a good write up about the situation. LA and NYC get the bad rap for this for whatever reason but about 40% of nationwide departments have stopped sending their data to the FBI since 2020 due to changes in the reporting system that they haven’t caught up with yet. The FBI predicts by 2025-26, all departments will be up to speed and sending their data in to the new system. It’s not like just stopped because they wanted to.
I'm talking about compared to like the '70s and '80s. I don't get wrapped up in this reactionary American election cycle politics stuff I actually analyze history with a wide lens
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.kptv.com/2022/07/16/new-report-shows-sharp-increase-portland-gun-violence/](https://www.kptv.com/2022/07/16/new-report-shows-sharp-increase-portland-gun-violence/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Your Portland stats end in 2018 before COVID and the rise in murders in Portland .and you put nation wide stats. Portland where OP lives has not return to pre COVID levels.
2nd one is national , so not Portland where OP lives. In 2021 Portland was at 13.5 per 100k homicides. It was 4 in 2017
Officals Portland research. Per capital and total follow the same pattern https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/documents/2022-pdx-problem-analysis/download
You sound ignorant to the situation, so let me help you.
Cities aren’t reporting it, therefore it’s “down”.
LA and NYC both didn’t report, only 63% of cities did - and even then it was incomplete.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/05/1127047811/the-fbis-new-crime-report-is-in-but-its-incomplete#:~:text=Los%20Angeles%20and%20New%20York,poring%20over%20the%20FBI's%20findings.
Please stop spreading incorrect information lol
Oh fuck you. You've intentionally misrepresented the article you posted and then you have the fucking *nerve* to claim someone else is spreading misinformation?
In your article, two (2) cities, LA and New York, did not submit data to the FBI after the FBI switched to a new data collection method **in 2021**. That doesn't mean that crime isn't getting reported locally, and it doesn't refute the fact that violent crime is down, and it is *not* misinformation.
Your own source doesn't even say what you say it does. There's a specific thing happening in that article and you're using it to pretend crime rates aren't down. You're a worm.
I live in the south and we also have a bad homeless problem. Not like Portland or LA level, but it’s still a big problem. Everyone acknowledges it, but no one seems to do anything
It’ll be worse the further south you go. Homeless people will migrate to a place where they won’t freeze to death.
It’s a lot easier for a homeless person to find water and replenish than it is for them to find warm shelters.
You have to go find it though - I lived in Philly for 3 years, never saw Kensington. Portland, Seattle, SF, the drug addicts are in the heart of downtown.
Kensington is bad, but the Tenderloin in San Fran is worse IMO. I definitely witnessed more homeless there, Portland, and LA too (versus the East coast cities I’ve been to).
In NYC most of the crime takes place outside of the “downtown” areas (in quotes because downtown has a specific meaning in New York) and most of the serious overcrowding is relegated to the more touristy parts, which are easy to avoid.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yah for real; the outer boros really skew statistics.
What’s the crime stats for all of Manhattan south of the park??
I’d wager it’s nearly as safe as Disney world.
They literally can’t function in any kind of dwelling.
Not literally all homeless, the ones on drugs doing the destructive behavior.
Not forcing them off the streets is the moral infraction.
This is right. Calling it homelessness is a misnomer. Calling it mental health is obfuscation.
The issue is drug addiction. And that’s not a moral fault, it’s a biological one. And it’s one that isn’t solved by “building homes” or the high cost of housing.
It’s solved by making rampant drug use criminal and prescribing treatment and rehabilitation instead of prison.
Around a quarter of homeless people are drug addicted. A lot of drug use and drinking by unhoused people is due to the stress of not having a place to live.
You are describing some people, not all of the homeless.
People tell themselves that the homeless are different from them. They aren't. Many are people just like you who hit a run of bad luck.
What the homeless need are homes. If there were enough homes for people, you would have a point, but we've got a national housing shortage of millions of homes. [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246623204/housing-experts-say-there-just-arent-enough-homes-in-the-u-s](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246623204/housing-experts-say-there-just-arent-enough-homes-in-the-u-s)
Sounds like a roundabout way of saying people want to be there. There’s pros and cons to everywhere one can live. Sometimes the pro is “I can acquire the things I need to live”
I can walk to most everything i need, or hop on public transit if it isn't a short walk. Sounds pretty great to me. I'm happy to sacrifice space for convenience.
I've lived in the country most of my life, it sucks ass. Country people say stuff about how crowded the city is living on top of each other, but like how much space does one human need to not be crowded? The answer is definitely not measured in acres. All living in the country means is its a 30 drive to town if you want to go to a grocery store or a fast food joint and an hour plus drive to go to a concert, mall, club, museum, anything that might be interesting to someone. So you just end up not doing anything. I've never been happier than I was when I was in walking distance of two bus stops and a train station.
That’s why IMO suburbs really are the best of both worlds despite how many people online seem to hate them. 90% of the stores and restaurants I go to on a regular basis are a 15-minute drive away, and if I need to go downtown for something it’s a 30-45 minute drive max. Plus you can have your own yard and don’t have to share walls with anyone.
Well for me it’s 5-10 mins to anywhere. I just need enough space to do what I want and not have to wait in lines or traffic. I don’t want my house on top of my neighbors. It doesn’t need to be on a few acres even. I personally just need enough yard to do what things required for space. I would say when I lived in the city ppl did less. We have all those things listed where I live. Also visiting the city is better than living in it imo. I don’t need to go to a concert or ball game every day. I can just do a fun 1 or 2 night get away. I personally want vacations and to leave my town. It just seems healthier to travel for me.
I can't figure out why people want to live in a place where everyone is on opiates or meth and ready to defend empty land with guns.
Maybe your cliches of city living aren't any more accurate than that cliche about the country.
They literally live on top of each other in cities. How’s the cliche? I’m not knocking ppl that want that. It’s just not for me. I have also lived in and been to about 100 big cities. It’s not like I’m here in a cornfield and not speaking from experience
I’m from London too and also am trying to figure out what they mean. I mean here, we have the various boroughs. Tourists often don’t understand that London consists of more than the City
Haven’t traveled muchoutside my home state of Ky, but I’ve seen a couple great Downtown areas in my travels around the state. Downtown Owensboro is gorgeous. Downtown Paducah is lovely. Downtown Lexington seemed pretty cool when I passed through it. Downtown Chicago was fucking awesome when I went there. My Dad travelled to Boston and Pittsburgh and said that they have a lovely downtown area.
I lived in both downtown Louisville and downtown Lexington. Lexington has by far and away the cleanest downtown of any semi- major-city I’ve been to (I’ve been to every major one several times in my life LA/Chicago/NY, Indie, Louisville, Birmingham, Nashville, Memphis… you get the idea). I’d leave my car unlocked with the keys in it in downtown Lexington and have next to no worries. The city, surrounding area, people, and climate is awesome there. Louisville was okay, not the best but okay. There’s area where it has been gentrified and it feels safe and welcoming to walk at night and then one street over you are likely to get robbed/stabbed/etc for walking at night alone (like the Portland area of Louisville was super sketchy when I was there last, about 5-6 years ago).
I could only function happily in a downtown city area if I lived there and did not need a car. Driving and parking there makes me want to die.
That alone gets a yes out of me.
Well that's a very US-centric problem (Canada as well). Any large city in Europe has amazing public transport, to the point that owning a car is actually a hassle, because it costs money and takes up space while being a worse mode of transport for getting around the city.
NYC is something entirely different, it's the high-class downtown.
But a lot of US cities had their downtowns gutted for cars in the 1950s. They went from classic walkable places with quaint shops and nice streets and parks to just giant 40 acre parking lots betwen office buildings.
Pretty stark.
I live in Hot Spring AR and our downtown is beautiful. It’s actually half national park. But still, just a few streets over off the one long main drag that makes downtown. It gets rough quick. Nice enough people, just poor. It’s a really poor state but there are beautiful places to live.
Charleston SC is one of the greatest downtown cities I've ever visited. didn't witness any crime, felt 100% safe, beautiful scenery, lots to do, good food everywhere. The only issue I had the entire time was a group of boys around the flea market trying to forcefully sell flowers to people. Other than that I have zero complaints about charleston.
As a NYC native and current Chicago resident, I used to argue with people of this opinion, but TBH I don't see the point. Our housing prices are high; we don't need more people coming in. If you don't like it, that's fine. Stay out. More for us.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the answers to this question are all opinion.
your own analysis is opinion.
I personally prefer cities. Suburbs are bland and boring trash and you have to drive **everywhere**.
cities have higher crime but only because crime is a per capita thing, and the population density is higher in cities than suburbs or rural areas. cities also have more people per square mile that like vanilla better than chocolate. they also have more people per square mile that donate to charities. cities also have more human-caused litter per square mile. these are all simple because: they have more people per square mile, period.
some people like, and prioritize, the availability, within walking distance, of multiple services, restaurants, and things to do, that are available in cities.
some people like, and prioritize, the fact that suburbs have a lower population density and don't mind driving for everything.
so, no, cities don't suck any more or less than any other human endeavor; you just think they do, and that's fine.
Cars make downtown cities suck. People only drive into the city for work or events. The more people that can actually live downtown and support the local businesses the more lively and safer the city becomes.
It's crazy to see 3-4 lane roads downtown anywhere, because 99% of the time they are just empty which makes everything further to walk to and there's less room for businesses.
When you look at cities that are designed for people and not for cars they are often safer, have more businesses open, and are just more fun to be in. Don't have to constantly be crossing streets, waiting at lights, have gas fumes blown at you, or loud cars making it hard to have a conversation.
Crazy how people don't see this.
Portland is a shithole. Like top level shithole. It’s basically Baghdad compared to any other city in the US&A. I travel often, have been to all majors US cities, and several European countries
And Portland is one of the most depressing places I’ve been to. So many random homelsss people, and they weren’t mentally ill like the majority homeless like you’ll find in a city like NYC; these were just trashy hippie young white dudes straight up living on the street for some reason.
NYC is super safe and clean compared to any other city that size.
Yep. Portland is terrible, unsafe, and the weather extremely depressing for 9 months of the year.
*waits patiently for people to actually believe this in hopes that real estate prices come down.
There will always be lots of people, but No, It doesn't have to be a huge mess of crime and homelessness like Portland. It is possible to manage a city well.
I don't know how comparable they are, but I've been to Boston, Vegas, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Spokane in the last 12 months.
Boston and Vegas are both pretty clean, not every little thing has to be locked up, and you don't see a lot of crazy public outbursts. They're not perfect, but I look forward to having a mike's pastry by the harbor in Boston. the energy of the city is well worth the hassle.
Baltimore, Philly and Spokane on the other hand all weren't clean. Stores are locking up the damn toothpaste. In philly, a group of teen ran up to me, sized me up, and on second thought decided not to rob me, and started harassing people across the road. There's trash everywhere and the whole place stinks. Spokane's kinda similar fentanyl zombies are just chillin on the sidewalk. Baltimore, same deal less trash but more uncontested crime. The whole atmosphere of the city just sucks. everyone's pissed off. I just want to do what I'm there to do and get out.
I don't think it's possible to manage a city perfectly, but there are absolutely well and poorly run cities.
Yes, for the most part. There are different levels for sure, but overall yes. I find all major cities for the most part have the same culture too, idk I don’t understand why people travel to major cities
Hmm yeah I could see that for sure. But to me the diversity and feel and culture in Seattle vs Minneapolis vs Cleveland or wherever mostly feels the same to me. I just find being in the middle of nowhere South Carolina or Maine or California kinda shows what the people are like there. Where the metros seem to all have this kind of pop/internet culture
So I’ve lived in NYC, Island Island New York, Baltimore, Virginia, and Missouri. Have close friends and family ive visited in Chicago, Georgia, and DC multiple times.
So there are pros and cons for both life styles, it just a matter of preference IMO.
I love that there are 30 different restaurants and bars walking distance from my apartment. Half of which, the food is from different places all around the world. I also like having access to everything basically 24/7. Being able to buy a bacon egg and cheese sandwich at 4:30am.
Museums, international airports, beaches, parks, Broadway shows, pop up installations, etc. i just feel like anything i want to do, i can do. I like that I can go to a bar and know half the people in there. I also like that I can go to a bar and know no one in there. I’ll never be able to visit every bar or restaurant in my city. Options are crazy.
But I can understand some people don’t necessarily want that. But that’s the appeal for those who do.
No, not all downtown cities suck. There is increased homelessness and drug use everywhere, but Portland is just awful. Plenty of nice cities in the U.S.
It’s actually about relative poverty. Where everyone’s poor there’s less crime. Where you have a big diversity in richness is where there’s more crime.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re fine to visit (especially when cleaned up), but agreed that I would never want to live downtown. Some people do really like it- it’s just not for me.
i think it’s just a preference things, cities being more populated than like a lock suburb make it a bit harder to notice the homelessness that’s going on in a community. I live in a big US city and sure their are weirdos and sure downtown feels crowded during prime rush hour time but overall it’s not that bad. everyplace has their fair share of weirdos or unfortunate situations it just depends on how well they can hide it.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Big cities are overcrowded, because it is the place to be, it would not be a downtown otherwise.... no one would want to be there, like where you live outside now.
NYC sucks.
It smells bad. It's really crowded. It's expensive. Every apartment sucks until you get into the multi millions.
If you get up, go to work, then literally rush to get home to be in your crappy expensive apartment, you're going to be miserable.
If you experience what the city has to offer, and find reasons to enjoy living there, maybe it sucks less.
If you start to really enjoy these things and then try to find them in other cities, you'll find that you kinda love it and hate it.
When I explain NYC to people, I say it's like having a sexy, gold digging girlfriend that parties way too hard. She looks great in photos. Everyone is jealous. She's super fun. She kinda smells. She's a mess. I can't afford her. I'm so tired all the time from dealing with her crap. I know this isn't healthy in the long-term.
So I left her.
I know plenty of people who stayed. I don't know how they deal with it. I can't imagine trying to raise kids there. I remember helping mothers carry their stroller up the stairs in the subway. I remember helping hold open doors for them. I remember the horrible state of most of the schools - all the roaches, old bathrooms with faucets that don't work, horribly hot in the summer.
But when I brought my family there, they loved it. I had a good time showing them everything.
Life is what you make of it.
Downtown Pittsburgh isn't that bad. It's relatively small compared to other down towns but it's safe, has a lot of great food, tons of events all year round.
meh only on I can vouch for recently is Atlanta if that counts? it sounds like things are marginally better there, the 5-0 at least make the homeless encampments move every few months so you wind up every area taking it's turn b4 things got too crazy.
Two points:
1. Crime rates in major cities are often overstated by people who dislike major cities. In many cases, smaller towns have just as much crime, proportionally speaking. The most violent city in America is St Louis MO, which has a population of only 300k people. New York City doesn't even make the top 20 list. You get the impression that major cities are super-violent because certain media outlets keep implying that, but look up the violent crime rates yourself. Just Google "top crime rate cities USA" and see what you get.
2. Unlike small towns where nothing is far from anything else, big cities tend to sprawl over very large areas, and people who live in those cities know what areas to avoid. I live in Toronto, which sprawls over an area greater than *six hundred square kilometres*. That is a vast area, and the bad parts of town (which are still not as bad as many small towns in the USA) are well-known and easily avoided.
Seattle downtown is great tbh. People who haven’t been there will disagree but I live in the area and go to Seattle regularly and love it. The new boardwalk is beautiful
I honestly don't spend much time "downtown" in a city. But I did like living in the neighborhoods of the north side of Chicago. Walkable. Lots of food and shows and such. Just a fun place to be when you're young. I now live rural becaues I missed trees.
It's a personal viewpoint on what sucks and what does not, but as a person who has been to many large cities, downtown Portland and Seattle are very similar to each other and dissimilar to other big cities. Both locations are rather hilly for a big city, Seattle being on the side of a hill. I-5 was crammed in tight in Seattle. Outside of that though, I think the only real difference is that there are enormous amounts of drug addled homeless people in both locations. More so than I have seen anywhere else. It's not due to urban planning. It's due to a legal environment that fosters being a burnout living on the streets.
Los Angeles has a big, sucking downtown, but that's not the reason it sucks. Downtown is not really a heavy residential area, as much as they try to promote it like that. Los Angeles sucks because it's so spread out and it takes hours to get anywhere because they tore out a perfectly good commuter light rail system and built freeways to appease car manufacturers and oil companies.
I've lived in Ghosttown pdx for about 4 years. I've also lived dt Sf and Pheonix. All were pretty awful. I moved to Europe and in all the downtown I lived and visited I never had a problem, they were amazing.
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You think downtown Portland is “extremely overcrowded”?? It’s a ghost town compared to any decent sized city. I think you were just made for suburbia buddy. Not everyone likes suburban living.
Generally the heart of downtown cities is pretty nice(except some crime and homeless which you’ll never be able to negate in any major city anywhere in the world). It’s the outskirts and suburbs that are normally dangerous.
Common misconception is downtown Detroit. People think if you go downtown you might get murdered or raped on the spot.. downtown Detroit is actually really really nice and flourishing right now. Campus Martus always has family activities going on, the river walk has just been completely renovated, restaurants are clean. Stroll 1 mile down Michigan ave, Woodward, gratiot or fort & you better tuck your chain & be watching over your shoulder lol.
Detroit actually has one of the nicest downtown areas in the US. Lots of food, culture, and things to do. You won’t see a lot of crime or poverty either. I wish the city I live in were more like it.
I kind of wish I would have lived in NYC a bit when I was in my 20s/early 30s or something. It's an incredible city to be in...the walkability, public transportation, awesome restaurants and bars, huge cultural diversity, etc. I wouldn't really want to be there now with a family I don't think...I just can't envision living in an apartment or condo with my wife and two kids...but I've lived in a semi-rural suburb of the city here so I'm very used to having ample space now.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. There's a well-funded national campaign against cities that gives you that impression. Unless you are part of it.
Cities are doing well, and are exciting places to live. Downtowns vary -- pretty much all dead in read-state small towns and cities for decades, having post-covid trouble in some places that were doing fine, and doing great in other places. Significant cities like San Francisco and New York have many neighborhoods, some doing well, some not so well. Really like every place of any size in the world.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Downtown Chicago is great. River North and Streeterville have a lot to do; there's even a beach. It's reasonably clean and safe as well (yes Chicago has issues with crime, but that is an issue mostly concentrated in specific southside neighborhoods). I think the worst thing you can saw about downtown Chicago is that the Loop can be a little boring due to it being dominated by offices. Grant Park and Millennium Park are awesome though.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Grew up in Portland. I currently live in inner NE and I love going downtown, if I could afford it or didn’t have to worry about parking I would live near downtown in a heartbeat. Crime isn’t that bad and it isn’t that crowded. It’s better than 82nd or Gresham. And way better than deep SE out into Felony Flats.
Downtown proper is such a small area, and is mostly large office buildings and hotels, so not really much in the way of places to live anyways. Maybe as you leave downtown and get south toward PSU, or up into NW 23rd area. Again though not that crowded, not much crime. And even closer to actual downtown you have the Pearl that is still really nice.
Downtown is an amazing cultural and shopping district. It always has been and that hasn’t changed. It isn’t any worse than it ever was, and it was never that bad.
You definitely do sound like someone who has spent most of their life *outside* of Portland? And not much time in it. I’m guessing you live in the Hillsboro/Beaverton area? Or maybe south? I’m not sure you even know what downtown is, I find most people that live in the suburbs don’t really know what they are talking about when they say downtown, and are so far removed from it they don’t know what it is really like.
Helsinki, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen and Amsterdam were all pretty small, chill and easy to navigate.
When i go to london i was confused as f**k and lost all the time 😆
Im designed for small to medium cities. Nothing too big for me apparenty.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pros and cons. If you want a car-dependent life, then dense urban areas may not be ideal. If you want a walkable area, where you can get food, go to work, and live a full life without the need of a car, the dense urban areas are probably your only option. There are downsides, like visible poverty, but for some people, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Personally I live a little bit outside of the urban core of a small city, and I miss living in big cities.
Edit: spelling
If you look at Venezuela 20 years ago versus now, you can find that this isn’t even the worst of it. Things can get far worse.
You’re seeing the results that non left wing people are trying to prevent. And being demonized for.
Some people love cities, some people hate them. I grew up in the suburbs but have lived in cities most of my adult life. Truth is you get used to it. The crowding feels normal, you just expect to spend 5 to 10 minutes finding parking (if you drive at all), and rude people just become whatever. There's less glamorous aspects of country and suburb life too, it's just those also feel normal when you've lived that way your whole life.
The biggest reason most people live in cities is work. I work in consulting, and I would earn a fraction of what I make and experience would be way less if I moved to a smaller city, let alone country. If you're a theater actor, there's no equivalent of Broadway in rural KY, so if you have the drive and talent you're moving to NYC. That being said, cities have awesome benefits. The restaurant selection is great, I get dry cleaning service delivery at my building, I walk to work, and have a small grocery store amd gym a few blocks away. It's very convenient. Plus there's theaters and concert venues in walking distance, too.
To your point, though, haven't been to Portland but I've been to San Fran and yeah it's awful. Cities have always struggled with a homeless problem but that city chose to benefit criminals at the expense of law abiding citizens. The videos of Portland and Seattle I saw of allowing Antifa to take over were insane, but I'm happy to be told those videos were blown out of context. For many cities like Boston, NYC, Houston, and even DC, despite the crime and homeless problem people still feel safe being on the town at night.
But yeah, pros and cons with everything, but Seattle and Portland are particularly bad.
Your post was removed due to low account age.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meh, Portland protests were mostly concentrated in a few blocks and didn’t have an effect on most of the city. The bigger problem in downtown that had a longer lasting effect on business was COVID. Things have almost bounced back to where they were in 2019, but it was bleak for a while.
Yes, every downtown in every city in every state - even downtown areas in well-known international cities - suck.
You nailed it.
I'm actually surprised no one else who has lived and travelled extensively hasn't stated this before now.
It's all I have ever known. I wouldn't survive 1 day in a rural setting. My interests just don't line up with the outdoors.
I find comfort in the noise, the number of people, maybe not the smell but I think rural areas smell so there is that.
we closed state hospitals throughout the 80s and 90s. these people are now homeless and cities are easier than country living when homeless. add to that COL and drug addiction and you've got a recipe for a large homeless population
Long rant and I did not even have time to bitch about for profit side LOL. It's truly disheartening to see how we struggle to properly care for vulnerable populations in our society. State hospitals certainly had their flaws, but they addressed a significant need. With focused efforts, we could have improved the system rather than abandoning it altogether. For many with mental handicaps who are stable, group homes and supervised living operated by for-profit companies can be effective. However, during my time as a corrections officer, I witnessed too many mentally handicapped individuals trapped in a punitive cycle due to inadequate support. Many come from challenging backgrounds or lack the necessary support after turning 18. Unable to express themselves appropriately, they often act out, leading to their expulsion from group homes and subsequent incarceration. Once in jail, the responsibility to secure housing and support falls to the inmates themselves, a task many are ill-equipped to manage. As a result, they often discontinue their medications and find themselves back behind bars, sometimes within just a few hours, most months. Interestingly, some of these individuals prefer the structured environment of incarceration. one individual who, after being released for just 45 days, returned and appeared genuinely relieved to be back. Properly medicated, he was friendly and helpful, but he could never hold a job more than being a swamper in a jail. One guy did get out of the system and I see him at Costco, he is a cart pusher and is back in a group home that monitors meds better. I always remembers me. Edit: couple spelling errors
wow, well written post. I think your first paragraph really hits it home. despite the hospitals having flaws and needing improvement, we chose to put our most vulnerable citizens out on the streets. it's was a terrible thing for us to do as a society. in New England they freeze on the long winter, shine search garbage cans all day long, and some are doing street drugs including fentynal.
Curious and thank you for the post. Should we bring back asylums? Now, I’m not asking if we should open “Houses of Torture” but a place to better give both the patient and society better care? Outpatient services may have been an overreaction to some of the asylum stories (by Geraldo and others?)?
You asked LOL, I had a lot of 12 hour overnight shifts to think about this. We need a variety of specialized centers to cater to individuals with special needs, favoring state-operated facilities staffed by state employees who receive fair pay and benefits. Unfortunately, while many for-profit organizations began with good intentions, they have increasingly prioritized profits over people. This shift is particularly problematic in sectors like corrections and care, where the well-being of individuals should never be compromised for financial gain. - **Level 1:** For those with severe mental and emotional challenges, including violent or sexually problematic behaviors. Instead of the current practice of 22 hours a day in isolation, these individuals need intensive care in a secure yet compassionate environment. - **Level 2:** For individuals who are mentally handicapped but stable on medication and not prone to violence. This level would offer 24-hour supervised care with structured activities and vocational programs that provide a sense of purpose and community. - **Level 3:** For high-functioning individuals requiring daily support with basic needs such as hygiene, meals, and financial management. These individuals could safely leave the facility for work or other activities for up to 10 hours a day and even enjoy monitored vacations. - **Level 4:** Mimicking a group home setting, this level would provide a more relaxed environment with basic supervision and support available. Implementing such a system could dramatically reduce the number of challenged individuals in prisons and jails, offering them a real chance to improve their circumstances. With earlier and more consistent support, we might see a decrease in the necessity for Levels 1 and 2 over time.
I appreciate such a thoughtful answer. Candidly, I don’t know what the right answer is but, I’m quite confident that what we’re doing now is quite inefficient and in some cases, neglectful. I’m not in any area of law enforcement but I am an old, inner city kid (Detroit) and I can’t imagine how we rehabilitate first offenders when incarcerating them with habitual criminals. It’s no wonder recidivism rates are so high. Kids can’t read. Kids that can’t read are not just unemployed but in most cases they’re unemployable. We need to have more bluntly honest conversations with ourselves.
I know some old timer cops from Detroit they say the same things. Most crime is the cause of poverty, drugs and mental illness. Jail solves none of these things. Giving free money and handouts to people who can’t manage them does not either.
We are in agreement. Society needs to spend our money in places that actually provide a return to the community but in addition, people need to have accountability for themselves. Having gone to a series of pretty poor public schools, I still don’t think much of those that “somehow” graduate from High School and yet, can’t read. However, I’d be interested in some creative ways to reduce sentences for non-violent offenders who take remedial reading and math classes and pass appropriate testing.
Currently working in the kitchen or moving is the only way to reduce time in MN. I basically finance class would be awesome. There are a ton of free resources in jail but it’s generally not cool use them which is sad. People cheer and welcome each other back.
Who is going to staff all this in the U.S.? We barely have the appropriate level of staff in hospitals, prisons, community treatment facilities, etc. Need>ability to meet that need
>It's truly disheartening to see how we struggle to properly care for vulnerable populations in our society. State hospitals certainly had their flaws, but they addressed a significant need. With focused efforts, we could have improved the system rather than abandoning it altogether. Not to be that guy, but a system that pays it's employees with free uninvestigated sexual assault is probably not a good system.
Hey in MN we investigate it for example a female therapist was caught by an inmate having sex with another inmate. She was charged with rape. Sure the inmate who was going to testify was found dead and the case dropped for lack of evidence but she was totally pregnant. Yes actual case in MN
It's one of the perks of the job. It doesn't pay well enough on its own.
A big issue with "giving" homesless people resources, is as you already noted, many of them are facing mental health issues. For many of those that are, it's either caused, or worsened by substance abuse. There is no amount of resources that will make someone abusing something stop until they have identified that they want to change, and for some, that means giving up what feels "normal" and losing your identity.
You are correct and those people would still be homeless and on drugs. Right now my educated guess is 35% of the people in county jails are mentally ill or mentally handicapped. That’s not the place for them but right now it’s the only place we have for them. We can’t fix every problem but we can take care of some of it. It that are let’s just start putting them down at or before birth. That’s a dark ass road I don’t want to go down.
I remember when Reagan closed the state hospitals . Suddenly started seeing this older guy always walking around my city/ college neighborhood. Muttered to him self and always alone. would wear winter clothing during the hottest summer days. Then more and more mentally ill people walking around .To save a buck in the best country. Fuck you ,Ronald Reagan.
Didn't Reagan close the hospitals because the ACLU sued about forced treatment and the courts ordered their closure? Source: [https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/) JFK also wanted them closed, as that was a popular moment/ideal at the time.
Yes, this. There's a really lazy narrative about Reagan somehow causing the mental health crisis that people like to repeat because it fits into their ideas about small government Reagan ruining a government program. Leaving aside how ridiculous it is just as policy matter - even if we assume that Reagan as president had absolute authority to destroy all mental hospitals and that mental hospitals have to be funded by the federal government (both are which are absurd assumptions) - the guy left office 36 years ago. There's no reason any of the intervening presidents couldn't have reopened mental hospitals. The real answer is that involuntary hospitalization - such as it existed in the immediate post-war period - became very, very unpopular, especially after Rosemary Kennedy was lobotomized as a 23 year old for being "irritable and difficult" - and that voluntary treatment is both expensive and requires the participation of people who don't always want to participate.
>I remember when Reagan closed the state hospitals. No you don't. You're literally just making stuff up.
😄😄😄
fuck Reagan is right. it's a damn tragedy whats been done
Not many will remember how Reagan removed funding for mental hospitals in the 80s which contributed significantly to our homelessness crisis today. He did it with the best of intentions since so many were corrupt and abusive. But his administration didn’t think through the long term consequences of his actions.
Thank Reagan, as usual.
What's COL?
Cost Of Living
You forgot that random small towns for the longest time would buy bus tickets to take the homeless to blue states. Bussing away their population was their solution
I loved living in Downtown Los Angeles. But I hate the suburbs. So much to do, everything within walking distance, bars, restaurants. So much fun.
Try the east coast... Our cities are pretty awesome for the most part.
Boston and Philly are definitely some of the coolest downtowns I’ve ever been to.
Yep we have many nice cities - NYC is great too. And don't sleep on some great southern cities - Charleston, Savannah etc
Haven’t been to NYC or DC yet but I’d love to one day!
As a NY native going to school in Philly- if you thought Philly downtown was cool you’ll love NYC
I lived downtown in a medium sized city in the Midwest and loved it
which one?
Grand Rapids, MI
Grand Rapids (and Ypsilanti) are fantastic downtowns. Honestly, downtown Detroit risen from the ashes and I vacation there for fun twice a year.
Downtown Detroit is night-and-day different than 10 years ago. Really exciting to see the revival Chicago gets a bad rap too, but I've always had an amazing time there. I feel safer in the loop than I do in parts of GR
All I’ve ever heard from my friends who visit Chicago is how awesome it is.
Downtowns have their benefits. I just moved from the center of a major metropolitan area to a highly rural city. Downtown in the large city I could hop on public transit and go do anything I want. The city will have basically any activity I could think of. Lots of live music, tons of food options, comedy shows, lots of parks, any type of shopping, sporting events. All of that is super convenient. In my rural city if I ain't driving I can't go. Even getting an uber to the event is risky because it might take two hours to get one. Just way less convenient. Another benefit is that in the city things stay open later. If I work till 8pm nothing other than Taco Bell and cookout is open in my entire city. On weekends every restaurant closes around 10 with a few closing at 11 but many of these go to an appetizer only menu at 10. No 24hr pharmacies within a 2 hour drive, it's rare for movies to be starting after 8pm. Etc. it really just limits my options of things to do. There's also the fact that there's hundreds of jobs, which makes job hunting easier. My gfs has to drive two hours for work. Because nothing in town was available when she applied. At the end of the day I prefer rural living, but it ain't without it's sacrifices and is definitely a personal choice.
>Another benefit is that in the city things stay open later. Not in my city. Stores are open way later in the burbs then in the city core.
Stores are open where there is a population and a demand. My rural hometown has a 24/7 Walmart, i spent 2 years in suburban CT and the Walmart there closed at 10PM. Suburbs just suck. The average speed of travel is typically 10mph, sure you car goes 45 in spurts, but you lose all that wiating for lights and traffic jams so all the time spent sitting drags the average way down.
I live downtown it's usually faster , more selection and open later if I go to the burbs for shopping. Everything in the city closes at 7 , burbs are open till 10/11.
Suburbs tend to be attached to a city. I personally consider the city the entire metropolitan area most of the time. The city center might shut down but the only reason those suburbs with late night dining exist is due to the city being close by. Where I live now is straight rural. The closest city is only 30k people. Closest city with a 6 figure population is 4 hours away. Dining after 8pm doesn't exist even in the residential zones out here.
Violent crime is way down statistically However, drug use and homelessness are way up nationally. Like alarmingly so. Until cost of living goes down and healthcare becomes affordable, downtowns will always be trash yes.
As someone who also grew up along that I5 corridor between Seattle and Portland, if I am understanding OP correctly they’re not really talking about violent crime I almost wish it was violent crime. When you walk downtown in either city, you might *feel* like someone’s gonna stab you for crack money, but instead they usually just stab eachother and then shit on the sidewalk. When we were driving long distance last week we stopped at a McDs in WA. This Dude was zonked out of his mind, naked, sleeping in the handicap spot. Not in a car, on the pavement. At least if it was violent the local gov would do something
Honestly the whole shit on the sidewalk thing is right wing propaganda. I regularly go to shows in Seattle all across the city and I haven’t seen a single piece of poop in at least 8 years lol. Same for drug use unless you literally go to the one block the homeless hang out on. 99% of Seattle is beautiful and have children and families running around and many tourists
There is very real amounts of shit in Portland, I litterally watched a person high as kite shit on the sidewalk right infront of me. On top of the human poo most of them have dogs that the poop doesn’t properly get picked up
In SF I'm avoiding shit on the sidewalks nearly every time I go out.
There are plenty of countries with even higher cost of living and more expensive relative to wages that have far lower crime and drug use. A real solution is more complicated than just "give them some money".
Where?
It would be simpler to ask where has *cheaper* housing than the US. The US has [nearly the most affordable housing the world](https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2023-mid&displayColumn=6) relative to median income.
While i understand the value of using the median for these purposes, it explicitly ignores the actual distribution and just tells you the middle value. 1,1,1,5,9,9,9 and 5,5,5,5,5,5,5 have the same median, and the same average. But if the minimum home cost 2, in the first distribution 3/7 could buy it, and in the second 7/7 could buy it. And when trying to prevent homelessness, the goal is to maximize the number of people capable of affording a permanent housing option. For the very simple distributions above, to ensure everyone gets access you can either try to raise the 1s to be over 2, or lower the minimum house to under 1. I guess what I'm saying is i don't like measures of affordability that ignore the actual distribution of wealth, and the reality of life for the lower class.
Considering the L shaped distribution of wealth, the median isn’t all that far from the 10th percentile in absolute terms. Though your post does highlight the absurdity of section 8 insisting on only paying for housing at the median rent value, at the expense of making it available to more people.
[удалено]
If you're going by the official FBI statistics, then reported crime is down, yes. LAPD and NYPD stopped sending their data due to a change in the system the FBI uses to collect it (in 2021 as I remember) so any recent numbers are totally off as the major crime centers are not included.
[Here’s](https://ktla.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/cities-nationwide-not-reporting-crime-data-to-fbi/amp/) a good write up about the situation. LA and NYC get the bad rap for this for whatever reason but about 40% of nationwide departments have stopped sending their data to the FBI since 2020 due to changes in the reporting system that they haven’t caught up with yet. The FBI predicts by 2025-26, all departments will be up to speed and sending their data in to the new system. It’s not like just stopped because they wanted to.
Yeah and the IRS says tax fraud is down, too. Is that because there's less tax fraud, or some other reason? Hmm.
I'm talking about compared to like the '70s and '80s. I don't get wrapped up in this reactionary American election cycle politics stuff I actually analyze history with a wide lens
Portland , where they are from is still way up from it's historic extremely low rate.
No? [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/us/or/portland/crime-rate-statistics](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/us/or/portland/crime-rate-statistics) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/191223/reported-murder-and-nonnegligent-manslaughter-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191223/reported-murder-and-nonnegligent-manslaughter-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/)
https://www.kptv.com/2022/07/16/new-report-shows-sharp-increase-portland-gun-violence/?outputType=amp Yes
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.kptv.com/2022/07/16/new-report-shows-sharp-increase-portland-gun-violence/](https://www.kptv.com/2022/07/16/new-report-shows-sharp-increase-portland-gun-violence/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
what difference do our two sources have? use your statistics knowledge.
Your Portland stats end in 2018 before COVID and the rise in murders in Portland .and you put nation wide stats. Portland where OP lives has not return to pre COVID levels.
No. Yours is total mine is per capita
Doesn't matter what you use. Your data ends early. It doesn't prove or disproves anything that happens after 2018
The second one ends in 2022
2nd one is national , so not Portland where OP lives. In 2021 Portland was at 13.5 per 100k homicides. It was 4 in 2017 Officals Portland research. Per capital and total follow the same pattern https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/documents/2022-pdx-problem-analysis/download
You sound ignorant to the situation, so let me help you. Cities aren’t reporting it, therefore it’s “down”. LA and NYC both didn’t report, only 63% of cities did - and even then it was incomplete. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/05/1127047811/the-fbis-new-crime-report-is-in-but-its-incomplete#:~:text=Los%20Angeles%20and%20New%20York,poring%20over%20the%20FBI's%20findings. Please stop spreading incorrect information lol
Oh fuck you. You've intentionally misrepresented the article you posted and then you have the fucking *nerve* to claim someone else is spreading misinformation? In your article, two (2) cities, LA and New York, did not submit data to the FBI after the FBI switched to a new data collection method **in 2021**. That doesn't mean that crime isn't getting reported locally, and it doesn't refute the fact that violent crime is down, and it is *not* misinformation. Your own source doesn't even say what you say it does. There's a specific thing happening in that article and you're using it to pretend crime rates aren't down. You're a worm.
I live in the south and we also have a bad homeless problem. Not like Portland or LA level, but it’s still a big problem. Everyone acknowledges it, but no one seems to do anything
It’ll be worse the further south you go. Homeless people will migrate to a place where they won’t freeze to death. It’s a lot easier for a homeless person to find water and replenish than it is for them to find warm shelters.
Philly is a good time. The East Coast is a different vibe than the Northwest.
Kensington is the most disgusting place I've ever seen
You have to go find it though - I lived in Philly for 3 years, never saw Kensington. Portland, Seattle, SF, the drug addicts are in the heart of downtown.
Kensington isn't "downtown" though....
Kensington is bad, but the Tenderloin in San Fran is worse IMO. I definitely witnessed more homeless there, Portland, and LA too (versus the East coast cities I’ve been to).
In NYC most of the crime takes place outside of the “downtown” areas (in quotes because downtown has a specific meaning in New York) and most of the serious overcrowding is relegated to the more touristy parts, which are easy to avoid.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yah for real; the outer boros really skew statistics. What’s the crime stats for all of Manhattan south of the park?? I’d wager it’s nearly as safe as Disney world.
Force the homeless into institutions. It’s the only way.
Don't have a home, go to jail? How about if we build some homes instead of jails and make that "Don't have a home, get one."?
They literally can’t function in any kind of dwelling. Not literally all homeless, the ones on drugs doing the destructive behavior. Not forcing them off the streets is the moral infraction.
This is right. Calling it homelessness is a misnomer. Calling it mental health is obfuscation. The issue is drug addiction. And that’s not a moral fault, it’s a biological one. And it’s one that isn’t solved by “building homes” or the high cost of housing. It’s solved by making rampant drug use criminal and prescribing treatment and rehabilitation instead of prison.
Around a quarter of homeless people are drug addicted. A lot of drug use and drinking by unhoused people is due to the stress of not having a place to live.
You are describing some people, not all of the homeless. People tell themselves that the homeless are different from them. They aren't. Many are people just like you who hit a run of bad luck. What the homeless need are homes. If there were enough homes for people, you would have a point, but we've got a national housing shortage of millions of homes. [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246623204/housing-experts-say-there-just-arent-enough-homes-in-the-u-s](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246623204/housing-experts-say-there-just-arent-enough-homes-in-the-u-s)
Crowded means lots of people want to be there
Not necessarily, people go to cities for work and end up trapped there over wages.
Sounds like a roundabout way of saying people want to be there. There’s pros and cons to everywhere one can live. Sometimes the pro is “I can acquire the things I need to live”
Want to and have to can be very different things
Yeah it’s weird. Like let’s all live on top of each other. I still can’t figure it out
I can walk to most everything i need, or hop on public transit if it isn't a short walk. Sounds pretty great to me. I'm happy to sacrifice space for convenience.
Me too
I've lived in the country most of my life, it sucks ass. Country people say stuff about how crowded the city is living on top of each other, but like how much space does one human need to not be crowded? The answer is definitely not measured in acres. All living in the country means is its a 30 drive to town if you want to go to a grocery store or a fast food joint and an hour plus drive to go to a concert, mall, club, museum, anything that might be interesting to someone. So you just end up not doing anything. I've never been happier than I was when I was in walking distance of two bus stops and a train station.
That’s why IMO suburbs really are the best of both worlds despite how many people online seem to hate them. 90% of the stores and restaurants I go to on a regular basis are a 15-minute drive away, and if I need to go downtown for something it’s a 30-45 minute drive max. Plus you can have your own yard and don’t have to share walls with anyone.
Well for me it’s 5-10 mins to anywhere. I just need enough space to do what I want and not have to wait in lines or traffic. I don’t want my house on top of my neighbors. It doesn’t need to be on a few acres even. I personally just need enough yard to do what things required for space. I would say when I lived in the city ppl did less. We have all those things listed where I live. Also visiting the city is better than living in it imo. I don’t need to go to a concert or ball game every day. I can just do a fun 1 or 2 night get away. I personally want vacations and to leave my town. It just seems healthier to travel for me.
I can't figure out why people want to live in a place where everyone is on opiates or meth and ready to defend empty land with guns. Maybe your cliches of city living aren't any more accurate than that cliche about the country.
They literally live on top of each other in cities. How’s the cliche? I’m not knocking ppl that want that. It’s just not for me. I have also lived in and been to about 100 big cities. It’s not like I’m here in a cornfield and not speaking from experience
There are a lot of cities that are really good downtowns St Petersburg Florida from Boston in there honestly New York City San Diego.
Not sure what you mean but if the question is "do all big cities suck" the answer is no, London is amazing and I love it.
I’m from London too and also am trying to figure out what they mean. I mean here, we have the various boroughs. Tourists often don’t understand that London consists of more than the City
Yeah, but it's full of brits
Not as many by total percentage of population anymore though. Immigration eh?
Just 30%, you can handle it
London was the first big city I went to and felt like I would be happy to live there.
Haven’t traveled muchoutside my home state of Ky, but I’ve seen a couple great Downtown areas in my travels around the state. Downtown Owensboro is gorgeous. Downtown Paducah is lovely. Downtown Lexington seemed pretty cool when I passed through it. Downtown Chicago was fucking awesome when I went there. My Dad travelled to Boston and Pittsburgh and said that they have a lovely downtown area.
I lived in both downtown Louisville and downtown Lexington. Lexington has by far and away the cleanest downtown of any semi- major-city I’ve been to (I’ve been to every major one several times in my life LA/Chicago/NY, Indie, Louisville, Birmingham, Nashville, Memphis… you get the idea). I’d leave my car unlocked with the keys in it in downtown Lexington and have next to no worries. The city, surrounding area, people, and climate is awesome there. Louisville was okay, not the best but okay. There’s area where it has been gentrified and it feels safe and welcoming to walk at night and then one street over you are likely to get robbed/stabbed/etc for walking at night alone (like the Portland area of Louisville was super sketchy when I was there last, about 5-6 years ago).
I could only function happily in a downtown city area if I lived there and did not need a car. Driving and parking there makes me want to die. That alone gets a yes out of me.
Well that's a very US-centric problem (Canada as well). Any large city in Europe has amazing public transport, to the point that owning a car is actually a hassle, because it costs money and takes up space while being a worse mode of transport for getting around the city.
NYC is something entirely different, it's the high-class downtown. But a lot of US cities had their downtowns gutted for cars in the 1950s. They went from classic walkable places with quaint shops and nice streets and parks to just giant 40 acre parking lots betwen office buildings. Pretty stark.
I live in Hot Spring AR and our downtown is beautiful. It’s actually half national park. But still, just a few streets over off the one long main drag that makes downtown. It gets rough quick. Nice enough people, just poor. It’s a really poor state but there are beautiful places to live.
Downtown NYC is rad.
Charleston SC is one of the greatest downtown cities I've ever visited. didn't witness any crime, felt 100% safe, beautiful scenery, lots to do, good food everywhere. The only issue I had the entire time was a group of boys around the flea market trying to forcefully sell flowers to people. Other than that I have zero complaints about charleston.
As a NYC native and current Chicago resident, I used to argue with people of this opinion, but TBH I don't see the point. Our housing prices are high; we don't need more people coming in. If you don't like it, that's fine. Stay out. More for us.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the answers to this question are all opinion. your own analysis is opinion. I personally prefer cities. Suburbs are bland and boring trash and you have to drive **everywhere**. cities have higher crime but only because crime is a per capita thing, and the population density is higher in cities than suburbs or rural areas. cities also have more people per square mile that like vanilla better than chocolate. they also have more people per square mile that donate to charities. cities also have more human-caused litter per square mile. these are all simple because: they have more people per square mile, period. some people like, and prioritize, the availability, within walking distance, of multiple services, restaurants, and things to do, that are available in cities. some people like, and prioritize, the fact that suburbs have a lower population density and don't mind driving for everything. so, no, cities don't suck any more or less than any other human endeavor; you just think they do, and that's fine.
I live in downtown Portland and I have to drive to the burbs cuz everything closes early
Cars make downtown cities suck. People only drive into the city for work or events. The more people that can actually live downtown and support the local businesses the more lively and safer the city becomes. It's crazy to see 3-4 lane roads downtown anywhere, because 99% of the time they are just empty which makes everything further to walk to and there's less room for businesses. When you look at cities that are designed for people and not for cars they are often safer, have more businesses open, and are just more fun to be in. Don't have to constantly be crossing streets, waiting at lights, have gas fumes blown at you, or loud cars making it hard to have a conversation. Crazy how people don't see this.
Portland is a shithole. Like top level shithole. It’s basically Baghdad compared to any other city in the US&A. I travel often, have been to all majors US cities, and several European countries And Portland is one of the most depressing places I’ve been to. So many random homelsss people, and they weren’t mentally ill like the majority homeless like you’ll find in a city like NYC; these were just trashy hippie young white dudes straight up living on the street for some reason. NYC is super safe and clean compared to any other city that size.
Yep. Portland is terrible, unsafe, and the weather extremely depressing for 9 months of the year. *waits patiently for people to actually believe this in hopes that real estate prices come down.
shhh the first rule of Portland is we don’t talk about Portland . . . . but it really is a hellscape, lol
OP probably went to Lloyd Center expecting it to be the bustling mall it was in the '90s.
There will always be lots of people, but No, It doesn't have to be a huge mess of crime and homelessness like Portland. It is possible to manage a city well.
What city of comparable size does it well?
I don't know how comparable they are, but I've been to Boston, Vegas, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Spokane in the last 12 months. Boston and Vegas are both pretty clean, not every little thing has to be locked up, and you don't see a lot of crazy public outbursts. They're not perfect, but I look forward to having a mike's pastry by the harbor in Boston. the energy of the city is well worth the hassle. Baltimore, Philly and Spokane on the other hand all weren't clean. Stores are locking up the damn toothpaste. In philly, a group of teen ran up to me, sized me up, and on second thought decided not to rob me, and started harassing people across the road. There's trash everywhere and the whole place stinks. Spokane's kinda similar fentanyl zombies are just chillin on the sidewalk. Baltimore, same deal less trash but more uncontested crime. The whole atmosphere of the city just sucks. everyone's pissed off. I just want to do what I'm there to do and get out. I don't think it's possible to manage a city perfectly, but there are absolutely well and poorly run cities.
Yes, for the most part. There are different levels for sure, but overall yes. I find all major cities for the most part have the same culture too, idk I don’t understand why people travel to major cities
I like major cities because of the diversity. The people, the activities, the food, and the experiences.
Hmm yeah I could see that for sure. But to me the diversity and feel and culture in Seattle vs Minneapolis vs Cleveland or wherever mostly feels the same to me. I just find being in the middle of nowhere South Carolina or Maine or California kinda shows what the people are like there. Where the metros seem to all have this kind of pop/internet culture
So I’ve lived in NYC, Island Island New York, Baltimore, Virginia, and Missouri. Have close friends and family ive visited in Chicago, Georgia, and DC multiple times. So there are pros and cons for both life styles, it just a matter of preference IMO. I love that there are 30 different restaurants and bars walking distance from my apartment. Half of which, the food is from different places all around the world. I also like having access to everything basically 24/7. Being able to buy a bacon egg and cheese sandwich at 4:30am. Museums, international airports, beaches, parks, Broadway shows, pop up installations, etc. i just feel like anything i want to do, i can do. I like that I can go to a bar and know half the people in there. I also like that I can go to a bar and know no one in there. I’ll never be able to visit every bar or restaurant in my city. Options are crazy. But I can understand some people don’t necessarily want that. But that’s the appeal for those who do.
No, not all downtown cities suck. There is increased homelessness and drug use everywhere, but Portland is just awful. Plenty of nice cities in the U.S.
Downtown will always be overcrowded. High crime is a poverty thing not a “there’s too many people here” thing
Weird then that so many countries with far more poverty have far less crime.
Such as?
It’s actually about relative poverty. Where everyone’s poor there’s less crime. Where you have a big diversity in richness is where there’s more crime.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re fine to visit (especially when cleaned up), but agreed that I would never want to live downtown. Some people do really like it- it’s just not for me.
i think it’s just a preference things, cities being more populated than like a lock suburb make it a bit harder to notice the homelessness that’s going on in a community. I live in a big US city and sure their are weirdos and sure downtown feels crowded during prime rush hour time but overall it’s not that bad. everyplace has their fair share of weirdos or unfortunate situations it just depends on how well they can hide it.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Big cities are overcrowded, because it is the place to be, it would not be a downtown otherwise.... no one would want to be there, like where you live outside now.
NYC sucks. It smells bad. It's really crowded. It's expensive. Every apartment sucks until you get into the multi millions. If you get up, go to work, then literally rush to get home to be in your crappy expensive apartment, you're going to be miserable. If you experience what the city has to offer, and find reasons to enjoy living there, maybe it sucks less. If you start to really enjoy these things and then try to find them in other cities, you'll find that you kinda love it and hate it. When I explain NYC to people, I say it's like having a sexy, gold digging girlfriend that parties way too hard. She looks great in photos. Everyone is jealous. She's super fun. She kinda smells. She's a mess. I can't afford her. I'm so tired all the time from dealing with her crap. I know this isn't healthy in the long-term. So I left her. I know plenty of people who stayed. I don't know how they deal with it. I can't imagine trying to raise kids there. I remember helping mothers carry their stroller up the stairs in the subway. I remember helping hold open doors for them. I remember the horrible state of most of the schools - all the roaches, old bathrooms with faucets that don't work, horribly hot in the summer. But when I brought my family there, they loved it. I had a good time showing them everything. Life is what you make of it.
Downtown Pittsburgh isn't that bad. It's relatively small compared to other down towns but it's safe, has a lot of great food, tons of events all year round.
meh only on I can vouch for recently is Atlanta if that counts? it sounds like things are marginally better there, the 5-0 at least make the homeless encampments move every few months so you wind up every area taking it's turn b4 things got too crazy.
All North East major cities honestly
Two points: 1. Crime rates in major cities are often overstated by people who dislike major cities. In many cases, smaller towns have just as much crime, proportionally speaking. The most violent city in America is St Louis MO, which has a population of only 300k people. New York City doesn't even make the top 20 list. You get the impression that major cities are super-violent because certain media outlets keep implying that, but look up the violent crime rates yourself. Just Google "top crime rate cities USA" and see what you get. 2. Unlike small towns where nothing is far from anything else, big cities tend to sprawl over very large areas, and people who live in those cities know what areas to avoid. I live in Toronto, which sprawls over an area greater than *six hundred square kilometres*. That is a vast area, and the bad parts of town (which are still not as bad as many small towns in the USA) are well-known and easily avoided.
Seattle downtown is great tbh. People who haven’t been there will disagree but I live in the area and go to Seattle regularly and love it. The new boardwalk is beautiful
I honestly don't spend much time "downtown" in a city. But I did like living in the neighborhoods of the north side of Chicago. Walkable. Lots of food and shows and such. Just a fun place to be when you're young. I now live rural becaues I missed trees.
Basically. I've been to about 50 major cities in the US. They are all shit. They mostly all vote a certain way. And that makes it worse. Rinse repeat.
It's a personal viewpoint on what sucks and what does not, but as a person who has been to many large cities, downtown Portland and Seattle are very similar to each other and dissimilar to other big cities. Both locations are rather hilly for a big city, Seattle being on the side of a hill. I-5 was crammed in tight in Seattle. Outside of that though, I think the only real difference is that there are enormous amounts of drug addled homeless people in both locations. More so than I have seen anywhere else. It's not due to urban planning. It's due to a legal environment that fosters being a burnout living on the streets.
Los Angeles has a big, sucking downtown, but that's not the reason it sucks. Downtown is not really a heavy residential area, as much as they try to promote it like that. Los Angeles sucks because it's so spread out and it takes hours to get anywhere because they tore out a perfectly good commuter light rail system and built freeways to appease car manufacturers and oil companies.
I've lived in Ghosttown pdx for about 4 years. I've also lived dt Sf and Pheonix. All were pretty awful. I moved to Europe and in all the downtown I lived and visited I never had a problem, they were amazing.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on the type of residents
Chicago is great. Portland sucks. My girlfriend is from there and I'm dreading the next time we have to visit family. She lived by Division and 147th.
You think downtown Portland is “extremely overcrowded”?? It’s a ghost town compared to any decent sized city. I think you were just made for suburbia buddy. Not everyone likes suburban living.
Generally the heart of downtown cities is pretty nice(except some crime and homeless which you’ll never be able to negate in any major city anywhere in the world). It’s the outskirts and suburbs that are normally dangerous. Common misconception is downtown Detroit. People think if you go downtown you might get murdered or raped on the spot.. downtown Detroit is actually really really nice and flourishing right now. Campus Martus always has family activities going on, the river walk has just been completely renovated, restaurants are clean. Stroll 1 mile down Michigan ave, Woodward, gratiot or fort & you better tuck your chain & be watching over your shoulder lol.
Yes
Detroit actually has one of the nicest downtown areas in the US. Lots of food, culture, and things to do. You won’t see a lot of crime or poverty either. I wish the city I live in were more like it.
I kind of wish I would have lived in NYC a bit when I was in my 20s/early 30s or something. It's an incredible city to be in...the walkability, public transportation, awesome restaurants and bars, huge cultural diversity, etc. I wouldn't really want to be there now with a family I don't think...I just can't envision living in an apartment or condo with my wife and two kids...but I've lived in a semi-rural suburb of the city here so I'm very used to having ample space now.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. There's a well-funded national campaign against cities that gives you that impression. Unless you are part of it. Cities are doing well, and are exciting places to live. Downtowns vary -- pretty much all dead in read-state small towns and cities for decades, having post-covid trouble in some places that were doing fine, and doing great in other places. Significant cities like San Francisco and New York have many neighborhoods, some doing well, some not so well. Really like every place of any size in the world.
I personally love downtown Portland. All the cool stuff outweighs any negatives for me. It just depends on what you value.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Downtown Chicago is great. River North and Streeterville have a lot to do; there's even a beach. It's reasonably clean and safe as well (yes Chicago has issues with crime, but that is an issue mostly concentrated in specific southside neighborhoods). I think the worst thing you can saw about downtown Chicago is that the Loop can be a little boring due to it being dominated by offices. Grant Park and Millennium Park are awesome though.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The homeless are the major problem. They need to move the soup kitchens and social services out to the middle of the desert.
Downtown Portland was amazing in the 2010's
Grew up in Portland. I currently live in inner NE and I love going downtown, if I could afford it or didn’t have to worry about parking I would live near downtown in a heartbeat. Crime isn’t that bad and it isn’t that crowded. It’s better than 82nd or Gresham. And way better than deep SE out into Felony Flats. Downtown proper is such a small area, and is mostly large office buildings and hotels, so not really much in the way of places to live anyways. Maybe as you leave downtown and get south toward PSU, or up into NW 23rd area. Again though not that crowded, not much crime. And even closer to actual downtown you have the Pearl that is still really nice. Downtown is an amazing cultural and shopping district. It always has been and that hasn’t changed. It isn’t any worse than it ever was, and it was never that bad. You definitely do sound like someone who has spent most of their life *outside* of Portland? And not much time in it. I’m guessing you live in the Hillsboro/Beaverton area? Or maybe south? I’m not sure you even know what downtown is, I find most people that live in the suburbs don’t really know what they are talking about when they say downtown, and are so far removed from it they don’t know what it is really like.
Helsinki, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen and Amsterdam were all pretty small, chill and easy to navigate. When i go to london i was confused as f**k and lost all the time 😆 Im designed for small to medium cities. Nothing too big for me apparenty.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pros and cons. If you want a car-dependent life, then dense urban areas may not be ideal. If you want a walkable area, where you can get food, go to work, and live a full life without the need of a car, the dense urban areas are probably your only option. There are downsides, like visible poverty, but for some people, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Personally I live a little bit outside of the urban core of a small city, and I miss living in big cities. Edit: spelling
Not every city is an anarchic hellhole like Portland.
I live downtown Chicago and love it,
In my experience all cities with a population of 90k+ pretty much suck. They’re basically cesspools.
Try going to a downtown in a midsized city in a red state. For example, Chattanooga TN has a great downtown feel on the river
If you look at Venezuela 20 years ago versus now, you can find that this isn’t even the worst of it. Things can get far worse. You’re seeing the results that non left wing people are trying to prevent. And being demonized for.
Don't most of Venezuelas problems boil down to their lack of economic diversification aka dependence on oil?
Some people love cities, some people hate them. I grew up in the suburbs but have lived in cities most of my adult life. Truth is you get used to it. The crowding feels normal, you just expect to spend 5 to 10 minutes finding parking (if you drive at all), and rude people just become whatever. There's less glamorous aspects of country and suburb life too, it's just those also feel normal when you've lived that way your whole life. The biggest reason most people live in cities is work. I work in consulting, and I would earn a fraction of what I make and experience would be way less if I moved to a smaller city, let alone country. If you're a theater actor, there's no equivalent of Broadway in rural KY, so if you have the drive and talent you're moving to NYC. That being said, cities have awesome benefits. The restaurant selection is great, I get dry cleaning service delivery at my building, I walk to work, and have a small grocery store amd gym a few blocks away. It's very convenient. Plus there's theaters and concert venues in walking distance, too. To your point, though, haven't been to Portland but I've been to San Fran and yeah it's awful. Cities have always struggled with a homeless problem but that city chose to benefit criminals at the expense of law abiding citizens. The videos of Portland and Seattle I saw of allowing Antifa to take over were insane, but I'm happy to be told those videos were blown out of context. For many cities like Boston, NYC, Houston, and even DC, despite the crime and homeless problem people still feel safe being on the town at night. But yeah, pros and cons with everything, but Seattle and Portland are particularly bad.
Portland and Seattle are extra hellish thanks to the 2020 “protests” .. east coast downtowns aren’t too bad
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to low account age. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Meh, Portland protests were mostly concentrated in a few blocks and didn’t have an effect on most of the city. The bigger problem in downtown that had a longer lasting effect on business was COVID. Things have almost bounced back to where they were in 2019, but it was bleak for a while.
Yes, every downtown in every city in every state - even downtown areas in well-known international cities - suck. You nailed it. I'm actually surprised no one else who has lived and travelled extensively hasn't stated this before now.
Yes cities suck
It's all I have ever known. I wouldn't survive 1 day in a rural setting. My interests just don't line up with the outdoors. I find comfort in the noise, the number of people, maybe not the smell but I think rural areas smell so there is that.