4 ms·

This is very interesting. A friend of mine who lived on Frederick St, just a few blocks up the hill from Haight, said that crime was much lower on her block. H

by pg 16y ago

This is very interesting. A friend of mine who lived on Frederick St, just a few blocks up the hill from Haight, said that crime was much lower on her block. Her theory was that bad guys didn't like to climb hills. And in fact there seems to be a correlation between altitude and crime rate. There are probably other reasons too. E.g. that the hills are fancier neighborhoods. But her explanation makes sense. If you're walking around looking for someone to rob, why walk up steep hills?

enf 16y ago
Have you seen the one that plots crimes as if they were elevation? http://dougmccune.com/blog/2010/06/05/if-san-francisco-crime-was-elevation/ http://dougmccune.com/blog/2010/06/05/if-san-francisco-crime...
- ericd 16y ago
  Very cool. Apparently prostitution is strikingly localized (which makes sense). It also seems that Hunters Point doesn't have much/any crime represented there either, yet it seems like people think of it as a very high crime area. I wonder why.
  - jberryman 16y ago
    > ...yet it seems like people think of it as a very high crime area. I wonder why. from wikipedia: "Bayview-Hunters Point is predominantly African-American. The neighborhood has a population of 20,322 and is roughly 60% African-American, the highest concentration of that ethnic group in San Francisco." The article on the community is quite lengthy and interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayview-Hunters_Point,_San_Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayview-Hunters_Point,_San_Fran... I've never lived in San Francisco and don't know whether this community has a bad rep. because it's mostly black or if it really is as crime-ridden as its reputation. I think we can all agree that this kind of data analysis is really important though, to understand where we live and shape public policy.
  - white_eskimo 16y ago
    Sampling bias. The more people who visit a high-crime area, the more crime is likely to occur. That and the gentrification resulting from UCSF's push into the area...
- ww520 16y ago
  Those are awesome pictures. It's interesting to see how crimes "fall" downhill from a center.
jorgeortiz85 16y ago
There's also fewer homeless people the higher the altitude. If you're walking around outside all day, and have no particular place to go, and are possibly pushing around a shopping cart full of stuff, it makes sense that you would tend to gravitate to areas with lower potential energy.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  its true. I've never seen a shopping cart on Half Dome.
rdouble 16y ago
I lived on Beulah, one of the flat streets between Cole and Haight. There were countless bums from GGP & haight street milling about my block, which was considered "Cole Valley", a relatively yuppie neighborhood. My apartment was burglarized and my TV was stolen. I moved up to Stanyan and Rivoli, considered to be the same neighborhood, but straight up a very steep hill, and never saw another human soul again.
- ericd 16y ago
  Interesting. Maybe crime actually does flow downhill to some extent? It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between crime rate and relative elevation.
  - iaskwhy 16y ago
    Completely different city but with lots of hills (seven to be precise): Lisbon. The most dangerous areas are near the top of the hills in places like Bairro Alto, Sé, Alfama, while the main bottom of the hill, Baixa, is much better. I believe Lisbon has a very low crime rate (for european standards) and my theory for more crime happening on the higher streets is pretty simple: on the bottom the streets are really big and there's lot of space while the streets on the top of the hills are really small so easier to be seen by the police when you're doing something evil. I like thinking about these kind of relations though!
    - rdl 16y ago
      In Brazil (and probably elsewhere in South America), real estate values go down (and thus crime goes up) the higher you go on the hills. Basically, this is because walking up and down the hills is arduous and sucks, and thus people try to avoid living on the hills if they possibly can. Thus you end up with favelas. If everyone had cars, or public transit, you would probably see better property values on hills, like you do in SF.
- hazzen 16y ago
  I lived near there - at Clayton and Ashbury - for a year. Not once did I see any homeless people. There is no way of getting up to that location without hitting at least a block of 15% grade. But the hill did not demarcate the homeless population - it appeared to be Frederick, which is a block further south than Beulah away from Haight. I had two theories: leaving Golden Gate Park, you end up on Frederick street; going north gets you to Haight St which is a wonderful place to panhandle, going south gets you nowhere. The other theory is that it would have gone further south (maybe a few more blocks to Parnassus), but the Cole/Carl intersection was nice enough, and full of enough families, to push people south the second they get off of the N-Judah.
alex_h 16y ago
Interesting theory. This might also be what gives the Tenderloin its' northern boundary somewhere around Post St, as Nob Hill starts rising more sharply north of there.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
scrame 16y ago
Shit rolls downhill.

by pg 16y ago

enf 16y ago

Have you seen the one that plots crimes as if they were elevation? http://dougmccune.com/blog/2010/06/05/if-san-francisco-crime-was-elevation/ http://dougmccune.com/blog/2010/06/05/if-san-francisco-crime...

ericd 16y ago
Very cool. Apparently prostitution is strikingly localized (which makes sense). It also seems that Hunters Point doesn't have much/any crime represented there either, yet it seems like people think of it as a very high crime area. I wonder why.
- jberryman 16y ago
  > ...yet it seems like people think of it as a very high crime area. I wonder why. from wikipedia: "Bayview-Hunters Point is predominantly African-American. The neighborhood has a population of 20,322 and is roughly 60% African-American, the highest concentration of that ethnic group in San Francisco." The article on the community is quite lengthy and interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayview-Hunters_Point,_San_Francisco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayview-Hunters_Point,_San_Fran... I've never lived in San Francisco and don't know whether this community has a bad rep. because it's mostly black or if it really is as crime-ridden as its reputation. I think we can all agree that this kind of data analysis is really important though, to understand where we live and shape public policy.
- white_eskimo 16y ago
  Sampling bias. The more people who visit a high-crime area, the more crime is likely to occur. That and the gentrification resulting from UCSF's push into the area...
ww520 16y ago
Those are awesome pictures. It's interesting to see how crimes "fall" downhill from a center.

jorgeortiz85 16y ago

There's also fewer homeless people the higher the altitude. If you're walking around outside all day, and have no particular place to go, and are possibly pushing around a shopping cart full of stuff, it makes sense that you would tend to gravitate to areas with lower potential energy.

stretchwithme 16y ago
its true. I've never seen a shopping cart on Half Dome.

rdouble 16y ago

I lived on Beulah, one of the flat streets between Cole and Haight. There were countless bums from GGP & haight street milling about my block, which was considered "Cole Valley", a relatively yuppie neighborhood. My apartment was burglarized and my TV was stolen. I moved up to Stanyan and Rivoli, considered to be the same neighborhood, but straight up a very steep hill, and never saw another human soul again.

ericd 16y ago
Interesting. Maybe crime actually does flow downhill to some extent? It would be interesting to see if there's a correlation between crime rate and relative elevation.
- iaskwhy 16y ago
  Completely different city but with lots of hills (seven to be precise): Lisbon. The most dangerous areas are near the top of the hills in places like Bairro Alto, Sé, Alfama, while the main bottom of the hill, Baixa, is much better. I believe Lisbon has a very low crime rate (for european standards) and my theory for more crime happening on the higher streets is pretty simple: on the bottom the streets are really big and there's lot of space while the streets on the top of the hills are really small so easier to be seen by the police when you're doing something evil. I like thinking about these kind of relations though!
  - rdl 16y ago
    In Brazil (and probably elsewhere in South America), real estate values go down (and thus crime goes up) the higher you go on the hills. Basically, this is because walking up and down the hills is arduous and sucks, and thus people try to avoid living on the hills if they possibly can. Thus you end up with favelas. If everyone had cars, or public transit, you would probably see better property values on hills, like you do in SF.
hazzen 16y ago
I lived near there - at Clayton and Ashbury - for a year. Not once did I see any homeless people. There is no way of getting up to that location without hitting at least a block of 15% grade. But the hill did not demarcate the homeless population - it appeared to be Frederick, which is a block further south than Beulah away from Haight. I had two theories: leaving Golden Gate Park, you end up on Frederick street; going north gets you to Haight St which is a wonderful place to panhandle, going south gets you nowhere. The other theory is that it would have gone further south (maybe a few more blocks to Parnassus), but the Cole/Carl intersection was nice enough, and full of enough families, to push people south the second they get off of the N-Judah.

alex_h 16y ago

Interesting theory. This might also be what gives the Tenderloin its' northern boundary somewhere around Post St, as Nob Hill starts rising more sharply north of there.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

scrame 16y ago

Shit rolls downhill.