3 ms·

I'd like a map overlay of median(not average! that means nothing in SF!!!) income of those areas. Something tells me higher elevation = way more expensive, espe

by smtddr 13y ago

I'd like a map overlay of median(not average! that means nothing in SF!!!) income of those areas. Something tells me higher elevation = way more expensive, especially here in SF. I don't think the common thief is wandering about on billionaire-row[1]. I think this has more to do with wealth than land-elevation itself. http://www.sfcityguides.org/desc.html?tour=34 http://www.sfcityguides.org/desc.html?tour=34

ojbyrne 13y ago
AFAIK, that's traditionally the way its been in SF. Altitude correlates with wealth.
- cgtyoder 13y ago
  Potrero Hill might be the exception.
  - geebee 13y ago
    It happens in the southern sections of the city too (which are not included on the map). Ingleside Terrace is considerably more expensive than the OMI (ocean view, merced heights, ingleside). Similarly, Mission Terrace, which not a posh neighborhood, is nonetheless a bit more expensive than the Excelsior, which is elevated ground toward McLaren Park.
  - ojbyrne 13y ago
    Having lived in Potrero, I've noticed that the houses get significantly ritzier towards the top. But the side facing away from the city is a pretty steep downgrade.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
xiaoma 13y ago
I lived in a crappy $500/month place in Chinatown for a year, ending this spring. It was the lowest rent building I've ever heard of in SF and most my neighbors were elderly immigrants with limited English (or even Mandarin!) language skills. It was way safer than any of the three directions that went down hill (i.e. towards Market, towards the Embarcadero or towards fisherman's wharf). There was also a notable absence of beggars. I think there really is something to it just being too much of a PITA to hike up all those hills.
mathattack 13y ago
That's exactly the point behind "Crime Doesn't Climb" - it's a reference to the wealthy being "Up the Hill". Though there are some flatter high wealth areas in the city, the hills are much more exclusively wealthy. To your point on mean versus median, I agree that median is more accurate. Even better would be homeless %, or % under poverty.
- geebee 13y ago
  This is why I'd be interested in looking at the graph for the neighborhoods south of 280, particularly in the eastern section of the city. In many areas, property values drop and elevations rise as you head south. That doesn't necessarily mean more crime, nor does it necessarily mean an identical mix of crime. That's a big part of why it would be so interesting to take a look. I really like the work here. Very cool graph and visualization, and if there are things I'd like to see, it's not that they are "missing", it's that the approach is triggering some ideas for how to look at and interpret the data.

by smtddr 13y ago

ojbyrne 13y ago

AFAIK, that's traditionally the way its been in SF. Altitude correlates with wealth.

cgtyoder 13y ago
Potrero Hill might be the exception.
- geebee 13y ago
  It happens in the southern sections of the city too (which are not included on the map). Ingleside Terrace is considerably more expensive than the OMI (ocean view, merced heights, ingleside). Similarly, Mission Terrace, which not a posh neighborhood, is nonetheless a bit more expensive than the Excelsior, which is elevated ground toward McLaren Park.
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  Having lived in Potrero, I've noticed that the houses get significantly ritzier towards the top. But the side facing away from the city is a pretty steep downgrade.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

xiaoma 13y ago

I lived in a crappy $500/month place in Chinatown for a year, ending this spring. It was the lowest rent building I've ever heard of in SF and most my neighbors were elderly immigrants with limited English (or even Mandarin!) language skills. It was way safer than any of the three directions that went down hill (i.e. towards Market, towards the Embarcadero or towards fisherman's wharf). There was also a notable absence of beggars. I think there really is something to it just being too much of a PITA to hike up all those hills.

mathattack 13y ago

That's exactly the point behind "Crime Doesn't Climb" - it's a reference to the wealthy being "Up the Hill". Though there are some flatter high wealth areas in the city, the hills are much more exclusively wealthy. To your point on mean versus median, I agree that median is more accurate. Even better would be homeless %, or % under poverty.

geebee 13y ago
This is why I'd be interested in looking at the graph for the neighborhoods south of 280, particularly in the eastern section of the city. In many areas, property values drop and elevations rise as you head south. That doesn't necessarily mean more crime, nor does it necessarily mean an identical mix of crime. That's a big part of why it would be so interesting to take a look. I really like the work here. Very cool graph and visualization, and if there are things I'd like to see, it's not that they are "missing", it's that the approach is triggering some ideas for how to look at and interpret the data.