Did you figure out why it’s low? For crime they took violent and property crime data from fbi source
“The 2020 census showed that just 13% of San Francisco residents are children . That gives us the smallest child-age population of the 100 largest cities in the USA.”
“More than 56% of students there are considered Economically Disadvantaged.”
Wow. They make the argument that living in an unsafe city teaches kids to be able to live in unsafe areas as an adult. Who on earth wants that for their kids? The goal should be for the kids to be successful enough to afford nice areas and never have to enter bad ones.
I’ve never lived in San Francisco, but I’m trying to understand the pros and cons of living there in the future for my child. From what I’ve gathered, there are a lot of great neighborhoods for families with kids. I grew up in a city, so I can relate to what Medium Guy was saying. I’m still trying to understand the difference between kids growing up in the city and those growing up in the suburbs in CA. My hypothesis is that city kids are more likely to be street smart than suburban kids. I’m trying to find out if my hypothesis is true.
It’s like saying kids should not take part in any competitive sports because they may lose. They should all grow up in an environment where they only win. Because in the real world you may lose. Best to avoid it at all cost as a kid.
Growing up in a diverse big city vs in a car-dependent all-white suburb is a totally different experience. There are pros and cons to both. SF is actually pretty safe for a city of its size.
No clue. Maybe the FBI database is garbage as well - it wouldn’t surprise me.
The only way crime comes out high is if you go all the way back to the Great Recession. Some folk cooked meth to make ends meet. Any recent violent crime I would have heard about. Closest thing we get is folk putting up ring camera pics of mountain lions on Nextdoor (no, they’ve never attacked anyone).
Cool. So you let your kids go to the tenderloin regularly?
Thanks for the thoughtful piece. I think the article makes some excellent points. Two points particularly stand out for me:
Many Fox News viewers these days are absolutely terrified to set foot in a major city. They may believe that to walk on a sidewalk today is to risk a needle in your foot or maybe bullet in your head.
That’s called paranoia , the fear of almost everything and everyone. Don’t raise your kids to fear the world.
You can see this attitude on this tiny forum as well. People magnifies and obsesses over any crimes that happens in SF. I think big part of the reason is that they grew up in small towns or in an environment where they are of the majority race. They may be both fearful of high density city living or being around people of different races than theirs.
I believe star cities like SF and NYC will continue to offer the best opportunities and richest experience to future generations. So being at ease with a diverse high-density city environment is a huge plus for a kid’s education.
When my older child reached middle school (sixth grade), she started walking to friends’ houses after school. Soon she learned how to ride our BART and Muni rail and bus systems to travel all over town. She and her friends, without driver’s licenses, make plans across all corners of the city. Today her plans and interests are not limited by where and when mom and dad can drive. Parents don’t have to encourage their kids to do this; it just happens.
All SF public transport are free for kids. They can just hop on and off wherever and whenever. This is huge. SF public transport is not as good as NYC’s but it’s miles ahead of car-dependent burbs like San Jose.
For out-of-towners the entire SF looks like Tenderloin in their imagination. But 90% of SF is lovely and perfectly safe for kids. Of course you need to have a small amount of “street smartness” and don’t get yourself in stupid situations. But such is life.
I’m going to laugh at that since all the Asians won’t live anywhere other than SF where there’s a critical mass of Asians.
I probably live in a denser area than anyone here. I did in the Bay Area too.
Yes, random reviews are > statistics.
There are a lot of hidden gems in SF that many locals don’t even know. The stretch of Portola Dr between West Portal and Castro is really scenic. It takes you pass the hilly central section of SF, with plenty of cute houses and big views.
The part of Richmond around the panhandle is also very lovely. Especially early to mid morning when lots of people jog and bike, with beams of sunlight shining through the woods.
Many such beautiful random spots within the city.
You can’t use data. People only understand feelings.
Stuff I would always try to show out-of-towners or foreigners, varying with time of year:
Near foot-long slugs
Redwood tree sections with the rings labeled with such historic events as “Birth of Jesus.”
The Candelabra tree
Humpback whales you don’t even need binoculars to see
A North American boa in the wild
The Monterey Bay Aquarium
Rancho Del Oso
One of the several rattlesnake dens I know of (what could be more iconic to a foreigner?)
This is all stuff you can’t get anywhere else in the world. As for SF - maybe drive across the Golden Gate to the Marin Headlands or Sausalito and work in a ferry boat ride to the much underrated Angel Island. Maybe see Golden Gate Park along the way.
Which neighborhood do you live in Nashville?
I’m between the river and I-40, so I’m right in the city. I have 30+ restaurants within a mile.
Correct me if I’m wrong, from your description I see there are 2 areas between I 40 and river and both are not in top 10 safe neighborhood. In fact one of the area lake park is in high crime area. Below crime maps show there are good and bad in both SF and Nashville. Why is it an emotion if a person from safe neighborhood in SF says it’s pretty safe there in their neighborhood (not the whole SF) and not by data but if it’s Nashville it’s safe?
Is dark good or bad?
Bad- more dark