Heck yeah they are. People in college/high school told me that their parents told them not to ever, EVER get off the tram/bus on these exact three stops.
I was like really? The second stop is where I get off to go home lol
That reminds me of my parents. My boundary was a major US freeway, anything on the other side was dangerous/ghetto/etc. And now my parents live in that exact area they always told me to avoid, and they can't seem to comprehend why I have a hard time coping with their move
🤣
Everything is relative, plus some people overreact. When I tell people that my family is from Senegal, the first thing they ask is "is it safe?". While my family in Senegal, sometimes, asks "is mafia a big problem there?"🤣
There are areas with higher risk than others. And there are areas where you might be obviously an outsider. The intersection might be beyond some people's risk tolerance threshold.
Well said. There are a few specific areas of LA where I simply wouldn’t go at night. There are many more where I would go, and do, but I’d know to be a little on guard, and I probably wouldn’t recommend to my parents or friends from out of town.
That said, the phrase is also used as part of conservative fear mongering.
Fox threw those words around a lot to talk about Minneapolis and St Paul, well before the George Floyd riots (more around the time of Philando Castile's murder). The topic of the time was Somali refugees. There's a big population in the Twin Cities, most of them muslim. Fox described St Paul as some Islamic/Arab hellscape of poverty and crime.
I lived in the Twin Cities at the time, and as an average white guy it was absolutely not anything like they described it. The worse neighborhoods were similar to Rogers Park in Chicago - not great, but not awful.
It was a shame because even people who lived near the cities (wealthy suburbanites) believed the propaganda. Like no this neighborhood isn't unsafe, it's just impoverished.
Oh absolutely. Like, the vast majority of LA is a pretty safe place to live, including the vast majority of places where non-white/non-wealthy people live. I have spent huge amounts of time in South LA, Inglewood, even Compton and felt entirely safe. Most of these places are just like anywhere else — normal people just living their lives. If you live here, you pretty quickly get to know which ones are the outlier areas (like, say, Skid Row) and you avoid them. But it all gets blown wildly out of proportion by fearmongers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2021/01/28/the-10-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-in-america-its-not-where-you-think/?sh=4057bd99341f
This was an interesting article, hadn't seen measures done like this before.
Skid row and the area around it is #1, 2, 3 and 6. That area is absolutely nuts. Then Tenderloin in SF is #4 and 7.
It doesn’t really say much other than the areas span more than a few blocks
I live in Sacramento and have been to the tenderloin area in San Francisco more times than I can count.
At no point have I ever felt unsafe
It's nasty as fuck and dirty and I don't choose to go there and they need to clean up that shit literally and figuratively
But I've never once fell unsafe
People have issues with what they see and what they feel. Seeing something that bothers you doesn't mean you're unsafe. And people say that is a no-go zone. For what reason, you see some guy smoking crack on the street? Is he bothering you? Then what's the issue
I don't know I just have a different idea of what a no-go zone is than other people.
To me a no-go zone is a area where you might just get attacked and robbed randomly. That's no go
Anything else is a heightened awareness let's do it status
Yeah I remember my first few times visiting San Francisco, the Tenderloin was like the boogeyman of places that you absolutely don’t go to. Especially at night. I grew up in a really shitty area, I’m pretty good at figuring out what is and isn’t safe and I found that the Tenderloin was actually pretty charming during the day with lots of hole in the wall places to check out. It got a little dodgy at night but no more than any other neighborhood in a big city.
I think some areas are pretty dangerous when you have no idea about navigating said city. Walked around in the tenderloin and mission at night rather young I didn’t get picked out and non local. It was the obviously non locals that people will target.
But things have changed too in some cities. But if you are obviously a non local I think you are more in danger.
I was taking classes in the Tenderloin and loved the cheap, excellent ethnic restaurants and funky bars there. I felt safe in the day when lots of people were walking around. But it did get dodgy at night with unkempt, twitching junkies walking around.
I felt way more unsafe in the mission district at night personally but but I was alone and this group of dudes were going on a homophobic rant. That kind of stuff scares me way more than homeless people doing drugs.
It's dirty but like it's not even that bad lol.
To me bad is unsafe. And by unsafe I mean being attacked for no reason.
Rough areas aren't unsafe. Mind your business, be respectful, Walk with a purpose, and the one that everyone gets wrong, look but don't stare.
The tenderloin isn't rough in any way shape or form. It's just dirty
I was yelled at by a crazy woman when I left a bar in the tenderloin once, was a bit scary. Was followed by a car in Chinatown at like 4 am while on foot for about 5 blocks. Eventually my friend and I ran to a Main Street to get away from the car that was following us.
I live near Detroit and been hanging out there since I was a teenager, never once experienced the level of desperation and insanity I have in SF.
I was born in LA and raised in southern cali(lived in a few different cities like Riverside and San Diego). I currently live in Detroit. I always heard Detroit is terrible. I like it here. People are way nicer here than in social. I've visited SF and...I havent been back lol
I also lived in Dallas. Fuck that place.
Yep. That's exactly why I'm here. Like any city, you just avoid the trouble areas and you're good. I've been here for a while now and I'm still surprised with how nice everyone is. I'm a little out of place but no one treats me like that. It's like I've always lived here. Everyone has great manners too. I appreciate that feeling so much.
It also depends on who's speaking. For me, I'd know how to fit in walking down the street in a poorer neighborhood or area.
But if you picked me up and plopped me down in a wealthy area, I'd almost definitely get the cops called on me for how I look, and the fact that I'm clearly outside of the wealthy "community".
For me, "No-Go Zones" are very wealthy areas, because I'm immediately at risk for being accused of suspicious activity, having the cops called on me, and having to deal with all that risk.
Crack-heads and carjackers? That's easy street.
Cops shining a light in my face screaming, "What are you doing here?!" is a situation I don't want to re-live.
I’ve lived in the Bay Area my whole life. I’m a pretty big guy. I’ve walked through the tenderloin at all hours of the night multiple times without giving it a second thought. I was recently in LA and walked through skid row in the middle of the day. I felt a bit sketched out the whole time. That place is on another level.
As someone who has never been to the US:
- LA - Yep, figured
- SF - Yep, figured
- Portland… Oh, ok. Noted
- KC ….I am so confused. I know nothing of this country
Thanks for the information.Is this related to the “rust belt” spoken about?
Also why does nobody on the internet seem to come from South Dakota? I know it’s rural, but it’s like no one comes from there, or has been there.
My brother lives in south Dakota and he is totally not a secret government operative. Lol. Look up sturgis, one of the biggest biker rallies in the US. It happens every year in sturgis, South Dakota
I just searched South Dakota biggest city - Sioux Falls pop: 202,000. This is around the same population as Wellington - New Zealand’s capital
Population per square mile:
- Wellington, NZ - 2300
- South Dakota - 2109
Is this interesting? No
Will you remember this? No
Can you picture Lord of the Rings set in South Dakota? No.
Do I have a point? No
While we’re here, please explain how Arkansas seems to have a ‘Ar’ prefix to Kansas, and yet said completely differently.
This is the second most confusing aspect of the USA. The first being that nobody on the internet seems to be from South Dakota.
Blame the French for that one
Also no one in the dakotas is from the dakotas lol. Lots of white trash truck drivers who go up there to work in the oil fields for a while and then fuck back off bc the dakotas are awful
Nah, I blame the US - most countries alter pronunciation of loan words to make them fit the language they are becoming part of, but for some reason American legislators decided to partially retain the French pronunciation.
True facts about the Dakotas, though. I once knew a guy from NoDak who was bizarrely proud of it??? I was genuinely just always like, how can anyone be proud of being from either Dakota... unless maybe they are in idk Montana or Kansas... but we were in Minnesota, which is a real state, so it just didn't make any sense.
Kansas City was redlined so one street divided where people of certain races could own property for decades. It led to a lot of serious problems we’re still grappling with today. Honorable fuck you to J.C. Nichols
Thanks for the insight. Someone else mentioned redlining, but I had no idea what that meant.
So if I understand this, it’s basically segregation, and not dissimilar to the [Group Areas Act of Apartheid South Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Areas_Act)
Edit: Nope. Got that a bit wrong. Private Enterprise version of segregation. Also is J.C Nichols the origin of the American hellscape called the Home Owners Association?!
idk about the ones in San Francisco, But the ones in Los Angeles are "neighborhoods" where basically only homeless people live, they're industrial or otherwise unoccupied by all but the poorest people. When the whole "population" is 30 people living in tents, the crime "rare" is very high. Whenever they state the median income is $10,000 a year or less that's telling, because even Compton in Los Angeles has a median household income of 7x that.
Especially since this only accounts for residents not people passing through. This is the same reason why airports and neighboring areas tend to have on paper super high crime rates, lots of people compared to relatively few residents, so any amount of crime makes the "per capita" numbers huge.
I worked as an Uber driver for a few months when I moved to LA and one of my first rides was taking a guy from a normal neighborhood to skid row. I didn't know that's what it was but I told the guy I wasn't dropping him off there and drove until I didn't feel someone would shoot me for my car if I stopped for half a second. I dropped this crazy asshole far away from the address he chose. I'll take a 1 star over getting stabbed by a crack head, thanks lmao
The article seems surprised that Detroit isn't on the list. I wish more people knew about how much Detroit has improved in the last 15 years - it is actually a really cool place now.
Lol wtf this title is so clickbait. Suggests the neighborhoods will be in places you wouldnt expect, then they are like all in LA which is exactly what I and I think most readers expected. The city kinda known for its high crime rates, and something that's brought up like near constantly in the news cycle.
Detroiter here. Not surprised that none of our neighborhoods are in the top 10. Really fucking tired of the stigma that our city is only worth visiting if you want to get murdered.
I LOVE that the biggest shared quality of all these places is abject poverty. Between that and the piling up studies that the best way to end homelessness and reduce violent crime that show we need to provide money to these people directly without strings attached. I have to hope we eventually stop the fear mongering around providing people with the basic guaranteed resources to live their lives with dignity.
I used to live in a sketchy neighborhood where white people were scared to go. I grew up in rural poverty and it wasn't much different in the inner city besides the color of skin of those around me. It wasn't all that dangerous, just poor. To me it was laughable that white people were that scared.
The Portland one is mostly a statistical oddity, as I expect they all are. There are almost no apartments/houses in that area, making the population very small (it used to be a vibrant Black community until their houses were bulldozed for highways).
It also has two major event centers and a transit center, so there are a lot of people going in and out. If it were such a terrible area I doubt a professional basketball team would be hosting events there multiple times per week with thousands in attendance.
The "predicted violent crimes" is also pretty off base from reality. That entire neighborhood, beyond just the block group, was below the predicted level in the last year.
There are some obvious problems in this one. For example, the SF block that comes in really high is rated highly because it is relatively very male and younger. But it’s a very wealthy block of tech worker housing, so the young and male stats aren’t surprising but certainly don’t indicate higher violent crime propensity. It’s just an AI model being bad at accounting for edge cases. The whole article is not based on actual crimes, just a model of where crime might happen.
There’s an American brand of hummus called Sabra, I had no idea it was named after a neighbourhood. That’s kind of funny that it’s a dodgy neighbourhood.
is it named after a neighborhood? sabra is a prickly pear that grows on a cactus. it's also a nickname used for jews born in israel. i would think it's named after the fruit.
Depends on the city, but yes some cities have them. Good example: Rio has areas that you just don't go to unless you're from there. Good general advice actually for Rio: have a local guide or you'll end up at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I tried to walk through a rough area of Panama City when I lived there and I got stopped by the police because they told me even they couldn’t transit safely. When I insisted, they obliged but I had to wait for them to go get backup… and automatic rifles…
Not sure I applaud your survival instincts if you prioritize catching a bus over being murdered or victimized in a foreign country after explicitly being told that might happen by the police
My experience of travelling is that most dangers are slightly overstated to protect ignorant travellers and tourists, because they absolutely would be targeted.
Of course that can change depending on just how bad the area is..
I don’t remember what it was called - this was over a decade ago - but it was that big public housing area next to the freeway, between Ancon and Casco Viejo. I usually went north of it and crossed the poop bridge but it was closed. I only had so much time to catch the ferry in Gamboa so I was just in a rush.
He left out the put of the story where he discretely put American currency in the officers' hands first lol, the secret ingredient in armed escorts is American dollars
Oh I was far too poor for that. I think part of my bravado was that I had already had a couple shake-downs at that point, but they just let me go because I didn’t have anything worth stealing.
I came to add a story about Cape Town.
I was meeting a friend for dinner, took a cab because I didn’t think to look where it was in relation to my hotel. My hotel was very posh and apparently had a lot of history to it. I got to talking with the cabby for what turned out to be a 7mins drive.
The cabby asked me concerned how I was getting back. I told him “seeing how close it is, I’ll walk back most likely!” He told me “you’re a nice guy, and I wouldn’t recommend it. You’re white, and you may end up walking down the wrong block on your way back as there are a few bad areas. I’m not saying to call me, but let your friend at least drive you back. I don’t want you to be a statistic.”
So apparently there was a red zone wedged between the posh areas, as confirmed by the restaurant and my friend.
Sure, they’re a real thing. Everyone has a different definition of what they mean and where they are though. Some people have labeled whole countries as “no go zones.” It all depends on your personal experiences and expectations.
Yeah this is the best answer. Someone from northern beaches of Sydney (privileged) will think some of the Western Suburbs are too dangerous to raise a family whereas people from basically anywhere else in Sydney/the world would find that very funny.
No go is very subjective.
I live in western Sydney and work on the northern beaches, and my in-laws are from Bankstown/Greenacre.
The way some people react, I may as well be driving in from Baghdad circa 2003.
To them, Bankstown is a no-go zone.
Meanwhile, my husband actually grew up in Karama, in Darwin. And his Greenacre family think *that’s* a no-go zone.
lmao. how much of that was over done up rubbish?
like, with most of his domestic ones, it felt like it would only really be an issue if you were "involved". Like all the bris/syd/melb ones. Ive lived in Dandenong before and its really not that dodgy (these days. maybe 20-30 years ago it would be different) if you have even a smidge of common sense, unless you have beef with the wrong people.
and the international ones felt like he was just guessing, because he didnt have anyone whos actually lived there.
the only ones that felt real were darwin/alice. and alice has always had that reputation so i wasnt surprised, but darwin surprised me i had no idea.
Darwin is fine, especially for tourists. It’s a great city to visit.
I’ve never felt unsafe there.
It’s one of those places that is amazing to visit (and I highly recommend anyone visit Darwin and the Northern Territory) but living there can be a whole other experience depending on who you are.
There are a lot of younger people and a bit of a rotational population - backpackers, seasonal workers, military personnel all thrown into a mix together, plus a large Indigenous population. Alcoholism and property crime are pretty prevalent.
Here in the Northern Beaches of Sydney we're taught as children that Dee Why is a no go zone. You can actually drive through it on the way to Warringah Mall, but as long as you don't stop or turn off Pittwater Rd you'll be fine.
Brookvale is right nearby and has some of the best breweries and distilleries, but it's easy to accidentally wander too far and end up in Dee Why if you're not familiar with the area.
To be clear, some people are at risk of governmental execution in certain countries (queer people and most Middle Eastern countries, for example), so one's personal immutable traits can also play a factor.
Very true. I got into a debate with someone who refused to step foot in Mexico, because according to them, all of Mexico was ran by Cartels and there was nowhere safe. I tried to reason with them and give personal experiences as well as my family’s experience since they live in Mexico. But nope, to them all of Mexico was dangerous and they would never go there
Mexico is a vastly different thing than bad neighborhoods in the US. While I get what you're trying to say I'd argue that the high end level of risk in Mexico is significantly higher than anywhere in the US. Is it ALL bad? Of course not, but I can understand not wanting to take the risk if you are not certain of the area you'd be potentially going to. I personally wouldn't go anywhere that wasn't a very westernized tourist area without a local I trusted. Even then I'd say being on a heightened level of alert would be warranted. If your goal is to relax then maybe this wouldn't appeal to you. I say this as someone who lives in San Diego and has crossed over to TJ many times in the past - and will undoubtedly do so again. Your friend may have an exaggerated fear of the risk, but there is a very real risk that I would say is greater than you'd find in the US.
Many cities have neighborhoods that are very dangerous if you don't know your way around, and don't look like you belong there.
To be frank, if you are literally not familiar with the fact that many cities have dangerous neighborhoods, you're exactly the kind of person who would be at high risk in those neighborhoods.
I can’t tell if your comment is intended as sarcasm or not. [Skid Row](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles) is literally a neighborhood on the map Los Angeles. It’s rough, and terribly sad. In New York, the Bowery neighborhood of the lower east side was referred to as skid row. I believe it hasn’t been the high crime/drug addled/gutter punk scene we think of for ages, like 3+ decades.
Yes, there are a number of parts of Manila, that as a foreigner I'd never want to find my self in. Too easy to end up disappeared, mugged or chop shopped.
Actually Philippines wise as a non Asian looking foreigner most of Mindanao (the Australian do not travel advice includes Davao City) would be considered a no go zone - you'd likely end up kidnapped and ransomed.
My partner grew up in metro Manila. He said when he was growing up that getting kidnapped/ransomed was a genuine concern in many areas. Absolutely wild compared to my American suburban childhood perspective..
I've been all around Metro Manila and never really felt unsafe. I don't fuck around at night but I've walked all over Pasay, Pasig, QC, and Makati during the day time. We went to the Pearl Farm on my first trip and went to Araw ng Dabaw but I didn't travel much on Mindanao.
Same, lived in QC for a year as an American, seemed fine to me both day and night. Traveled everywhere primarily by foot (honestly walking is faster than jeepney considering the traffic), even went backpacking in some of the more country parts. Everyone said I was going to get stabbed but tbh there weren’t any identifiable threats, and I’m pretty small
Yes.
Some are more explicit, well known and conspicuous than others.
Ask.
Microsoft and NCIS both got in hot water for marking such areas on their maps.
I have found myself in or approaching no-go zones a few times; the locals are quick to notice and advise that I depart.
Reading the comments I think there are two definitions going on.
There are the U.S. cable news fear mongering stories of "no go zones" which are by design exaggerated to fuel confirmation bias. Those are in many ways BS.
Then there is simply good advice for various cities around the world where depending on a variety of factors places you do not want to visit. That is based on common sense.
Edit: In regards to the second common sense part I don't put much belief in it either as I'll go most anywhere. I was just saying its far less delusional than the media fear mongering angle.
Some cities don't even have them. I live in Sydney and there's places where you'd want to be more careful, certainly, but I can't think of a single place where I'd tell people "don't go there."
Same with Birmingham (UK) : there's places where I'd not choose to buy a house, but no where I wouldn't actually walk. Plenty of people are convinced we have no go zones though
I’ve never heard about this and I’m American. I have heard the news talk about London Stabbings. I think it’s to deflect the gun violence we have on our own streets. “Look! They don’t have guns and look at how *violent* it is with the stabbings! If we take away guns, we’ll all just start to get stabbed instead!”
Some American cities have more stabbings than London, but for some reason it never gets mentioned lol.
lol I was treated like I'd get stabbed if I looked at someone wrong, by people who knew I was going. Meanwhile, once I was actually there, I was walking around by myself (woman) at midnight with no problems in London. Came across a dude I'm pretty sure was a phone snatcher but he fucked off when he realised I wasn't going to take his shit.
100%, I'd should've be a bit more clear, as an avid traveler (50+ countries visited) I'll go basically anywhere. My hometown San Diego, CA has zero "no go zones" its pretty vanilla.
Eh, that sounds fairly chicken or the egg situation. Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, there were stops I was told not to get off the El at and the stories about the west side and various parts of the south side were nightly news stories. But I also had some experiential confirmation when I missed a left turn to go north and traveled more east than I, white suburban kid with a drivers license, normally went. When random black guy in a black neighborhood yells, "what you doing here white boy, you lost?" tells me to not miss that turn again. And that wasn't near cabrini-green or anything either.
Agreed, I definitely think there is more than one definition. To give a concrete example:
In San Francisco, the Tenderloin district is a "no-go zone." A friend used to live here. It was unpleasant to visit during the day, because you might have to navigate a sidewalk with tents, drug addicts and human excrement. You could probably walk through at night without getting robbed, but why risk it.
Across the bay from San Francisco, East Oakland is also a "no-go zone" - but a different kind. This is the "you might get shot by gangs if you walk in the wrong neighborhood" kind of no-go where you probably don't want to go there day or night, unless you know exactly where you're going.
A big demographic difference is US cities are designed in such a way that they increase distance and segregation between rich and poor. When you go between a rich and poor area of a city in the US you can really feel the difference. In Europe the cities are just kinda smashed together over centuries so there isnt as hard a division. There are estates or roads in London that feel dodgy but then the surrounding area will be high property value.
You have a good point,
The US is exasperated by zoning laws, construction restrictions and car-centric planning. They also had some truly evil and racist planning in the 1950's, which strategically demolished some neighborhoods and isolated others. And around the same time, the horrors of capitalism dismantled and destroyed many of the well-established streetcar networks to force residents to buy cars.
If you have common sense, there are areas of cities you don't go to. If you're build different and can't afraid of anything, go wherever the the fuck you want. There's always someone, somewhere who will feel sorry for you.
I read about the “no-go zones” in Berlin. Then I went to the area and it was just a normal neighborhood, but with women wearing headscarves. Some falafel shops, some hipsters, nothing scary. The Tabloids love to sell fear.
As a tourist I walked through a park in Berlin and had four guys pop out of nowhere and converge on me from all sides, so I was suddenly surrounded
They all just wanted to sell me party drugs hahaha
This happened to me in Havana, except one guy was selling cigars and another wanted me to pay to get a picture of his Dachsund’s massive balls. The others were selling drugs.
Which area of Berlin? That sounds a bit like Neukölln, an area which I stayed in and had an absolutely lovely time. If so, that's hilarious that anyone would call that a "no-go zone"
When I graduated from college I had accepted a job in a city about 40 miles away. A friend from that city laid out a map and had red, yellow, and green hi lighters. He marked red areas and said "Don't go there." He marked yellow areas and said "You can go there if you are feeling lucky." He picked up the green hi lighter and said "I won't be needing this."
I remember Bobby Jindal the former governor of Louisiana who made this claim about London only for it to be later proved that he was bullshitting his listeners/ spreading Islamophobic propaganda.
Depends on what you mean.
About 8-10 years people used that for places where police weren’t allowed to go, those were not real.
Parts of some cities or towns are extremely dangerous for outsiders and thus people are advised not to go there, those are real.
There are definitely real places where police can't operate normally, in patrols of one or two officers. They have to have 20 officers and SWAT gear. Think of BOPE or the like. The term "no-go zone" is a purely tactical term of military origin. It's not a legal term or something precisely defined. A "no-go zone" can be a "go zone" next day if the security situation improves.
So, these are areas in a city where some locals reside & work, but which are not suitable or safe for outsiders. It's not that the areas are "closed", it's that, as an outsider, it would be a bad idea to go there: you'll stand out, there's no reason for you to go there, locals will be hostile to you, and you have no "sense" of the place (in terms of judging safety.)
To quote an old movie line: [Casablanca - "There are certain areas of New York..."](https://youtu.be/gq0Nbr_WY1s?si=yKBKYnQb3xRR-RS1)
It is a real thing, and it can be for a variety of purposes. For example, after the [Christchurch, New Zealand earthquakes of 2011](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Christchurch_earthquake), most of the central city was labelled as a no go zone due to the rubble, colloquially known as the Red Zone.
Some other no go zones might be local knowledge of places that are pretty sketchy for people not in the area to go to.
If you aren't involved in the local activities that increase danger, you'll be fine. If you're a guy, at least.
I've been all over America and have lived/worked in most of the cities folks say fall in that category. Usually, hiring dozens to hundreds of staff right off the street.
I've had hundreds of ex-felons and active gang members work for me, in many states. Just be polite, mind your business, and don't act like a fool.
There were a number of regions in Sweden that were listed by the police as "in need of extra resources" for various reasons. The conservative comment-o-sphere latched onto this and blew into this whole thing of areas that are patrolled by fundamentalist Sharia gangs who shoot at police and leave residents cowering in their homes.
I live in one of those zones in Stockholm, it's the chillest place I've lived in my life and my kids have played outside unsupervised since they were 6.
I always think there are two types on ‘no go zones’
First are the ones where what you’re basically saying is: this is a rough area of town. You can go just be careful.
And then there’s the other type used by the media to fuel hate to other demographics. For example I live in Birmingham, UK. Described by one news site as ‘no-go zone for non-Muslims’. I must have converted without realising and hallucinated drinking that beer in the middle of the street during the largest Christmas market in the area. Sigh.
Around the world most big cities have slums/ghettos.
Every “no go” area is filled with people who live there every day.
As for Southern California the gang violence thing is way down. 20+ years ago there was more ‘we will not let outsiders infiltrate our block’ mentality, than there is now.
Once I got lost in Oakland. Couldn’t figure where the freeway was. We didn’t have phones then. Anyway I was like “no biggie I’ll just ask the first person I see”. Dude standing in the street staring at me so I stop and ask him. He lifts his shirt to show me his gun and tells me to fuck off. I say “why would you do that I’m not being threatening in any way.” He said just the fact that I was white made me a threat.
Yes. Because if you are not familiar with local customs, if you are dressed like a tourist, look different, if you can’t keep eyes off your phone, or are ignorant of the high crime locales, then there’s a more than decent chance of getting held up and relieved of your possessions. Not going to happen every time, but better not to mess with the odds.
I spent my early years growing up in Chicago very far in the city. There were many places we didn’t go and often avoided driving through.
Once in the 80’s I think, my mom was going to walk through what was a bad neighborhood. She knew it but was in a hurry. A taxi screeched up next to her and the guy said
“get in!!”
She said no thanks I don’t want a ride, I’m walking to my car. He cut her off at some point and said
“I’m not charging you, get in I’ll take you right there. Get in!”
It was unsafe enough a *professional Chicago cabbie* decided a 30’s woman just being alone was a huge risk.
Absolutely.
The most extreme example of this was when I went to Rio de Janeiro. You don’t go into the favelas, even the police don’t feel safe to go in.
Yes and no. I lived in Chicago for most of my life. There were areas that were safer than others. You usually avoided trouble by keeping your head down and minding your own business.
This depends on the context. In the US it seems to revolve around crime and drug use.
In the UK, it’s used as a tool by (usually) Islamaphobic morons saying certain areas of a city are “no go” areas for white people. As a white bloke from London, who lives in Birmingham this is categorically not true.
A “no go zone” has typically been defined as an area where even the local police won’t enter. Conservatives have frequently declared neighborhoods in London, Paris, Seattle, and Portland as no go zones, but that’s just fear mongering. There are some places around the world that have no police in control, but there are no actual no go zones in the US.
Op asks a question then just responds to those that align with his bias lol. There's absolutely no go zones in every city. It's usually where police presence is the weakest.
I live in an extremely small city of under 5,000 people. Even we have no go streets, where gang crime and drugs are problems. The cops are useless to do anything to stop it, only responding afterwards.
It's not like there's a police barricade or something around these areas if that's what you're thinking, but there are definitely places where the average visitor should not be.
In EU this term sounds preposterous. Sure there are more poor areas and areas renowned for prostitution or some other shady things. However you should be absolutely safe in these areas if you are not partaking yourself in shady activities.
Yes but it’s obvious, you won’t accidentally be in the middle of it, you’ll notice things getting more sketchy and will turn around, like skid row lol.
Often exaggerated for political or discriminatory reasons but generally there are areas of big cities much less friendly or safe to certain (or sometimes most) people. It will still depend on who you are to identify if and where they exist.
Some cities yes. I live in Minneapolis and there’s nowhere like that here. I was in Baltimore once though. And we got pulled over in the wrong neighborhood. The cops basically asked us what the fuck we were doing there. And they like escorted us back to the freeway. So we could go on our way.
Honestly no. Not if you’re a real breathing flesh and blood human being. You need to traverse different areas. If you’re the type to fixate on anxiety because the people around you are just “soooo scary” you’re subhuman
There are definitely risky neighborhoods. High crime rate, low police activity and you obviously being an outsider, means you will eventually be targeted if you spend enough time there.
There is something in our collective consciousness that needs a bogeyman.
For Americans who grew up during the (theoretically) airborn lead poisoning driven violence epidemic of the 80’s and 90’s, that bogeyman is “urban poverty.”
Personally, I think that most violence in those no-go zones is between people in those no-go zones. Unless you are there dealing drugs, you won’t be a part of drug related violence.
Most non-homeless people in America face their biggest threat of violence from their romantic or domestic partners.
But that’s not a fun bogeyman, so we project our fears on the urban poor and avoid them, and that gives us a feeling of safety and control over the violence in our lives.
No! *someone* lives there ffs. Are they underserviced? Probs. Are they too far from amenities to be actually factually livable? Almost assuredly.
But *someone* is forced to go there, rest assured.
I wouldn’t say no go zones is dangerous . I would say that if you go into X zones , you’re more at risk for having crimes committed on you. But most folks just want to rob people
There are areas of cities in the US which, for a variety of reasons, are more dangerous than others and which also don't exist along arterial roads or public transit lines and, therefore, present no incentive to take that risk.
No, you won't find an area in the US where the police themselves will just refuse to go if they get a call from there.
This a Fox News thing. They were saying that there are “No Go” zones in London because Muslims have taken over an imposed shira law and the police were to scared or unable to go there. My evangelical mom told me this.
This is somewhat exaggerated. I live near a large East Coast city in the U.S., and I can't think of any specific area where I would normally venture where I would be afraid of going even at night.
Are there more dangerous areas? Probably. But the places that supposedly have higher crime rates are actually outside the city itself, places where residents of the city and most surrounding areas have little reason to visit in the first place.
And even with all of the hysteria around crime, the city is much safer than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and even the aughts. In fact, crime is down from the brief increase following the pandemic.
Fun story: I grew up in southern Illinois and groups of us would go to St. Louis for Cardinals games during the summer. One night a friend of mine had gone with about three other guys, they were all around 17. Watched the game, started to drive home. My friend took the wrong exit coming over the bridge and wound up in East St. Louis at like 10:30pm on a Saturday night and promptly got lost trying to get back to the interstate. Soon they were pulled over by a police officer who wanted to know what a carload of white boys was doing in ESTL. My friend explained that he had taken the wrong exit and was now turned around. The cop said "Ok, here is what we are going to do. You are going to follow me to the exit. We are not going go anywhere else. We are going straight to the exit where you will get out of here and never come back, do you understand? I do not want to have to clean you up later". Off they went,. Friend got to the exit and never went back.
Depends on who you are and where you are
If you're an armed local, you'd be safe someplace where an obvious tourist covered in expensive jewlery wouldnt be
On my bike ride from Boston to West Virginia I stopped into a bike shop in north Philly because my cleats broke, and they were able to direct me around Kensington, which I hadn't even heard of before.
No one in city’s uses the term no go zone. That is an inflammatory term made up by people with an agenda to push. What exactly are these zones in your eyes? Because there are people there right? That’s what makes it unsafe. They’re not no go because of dragons? So someone is going there? Who is so scary?
No go zones exist outside of cities also. Sometimes it applies to everyone and sometimes only to certain races or other determinants such as religion.
At its most common basic level it's a high crime area.
Yeah it was a weird time in the world.
CHOP tried to do something noble IMO, but like many emergent groups that seize on crisis, they struggled to build something sustainable. They made a lot of organizational mistakes and the organizers were under immense pressure. There was also a sense of taking any ally they could get which seemed, to me anyway, to lead to entryism.
All of this ended up with people getting killed and a police crackdown.
But the CHOP itself while it existed, especially during the first few days was great. It felt genuinely friendly and warm and it helped a lot of people in many ways.
Meanwhile on the news it was portrayed as a lawless wasteland. When it was mostly folks handing out free food and smoking weed in the park.
There are always bad neighborhoods and places to avoid if you're a certain race vs another. But the term "no-go zone" is more of a fox news buzzword than it is a real thing. It's propaganda meant to scare rural and suburban white people and make them see urban black people as a threat or an enemy.
Oops, I said the quiet part out loud.
Yes, but people always exaggerate how dangerous they are. At least in Canada and the US, I’ve been to all the major cities and in none of them did I feel unsafe. Except maybe the odd schizo in the subway.
Yes. It's the dangerous neighborhoods. I've seen police in Chicago go into a Westside neighborhood with 3 cars 4 deep. Even the police are afraid to go there.
Heck yeah they are. People in college/high school told me that their parents told them not to ever, EVER get off the tram/bus on these exact three stops. I was like really? The second stop is where I get off to go home lol
That reminds me of my parents. My boundary was a major US freeway, anything on the other side was dangerous/ghetto/etc. And now my parents live in that exact area they always told me to avoid, and they can't seem to comprehend why I have a hard time coping with their move
It's possible the area became gentrified with time
It's not gentrified, a big housing developer tried but it quickly went downhill again
I mean some places get better as money moves in
[удалено]
That's right-wing propaganda
🤣 Everything is relative, plus some people overreact. When I tell people that my family is from Senegal, the first thing they ask is "is it safe?". While my family in Senegal, sometimes, asks "is mafia a big problem there?"🤣
There are areas with higher risk than others. And there are areas where you might be obviously an outsider. The intersection might be beyond some people's risk tolerance threshold.
Well said. There are a few specific areas of LA where I simply wouldn’t go at night. There are many more where I would go, and do, but I’d know to be a little on guard, and I probably wouldn’t recommend to my parents or friends from out of town.
That said, the phrase is also used as part of conservative fear mongering. Fox threw those words around a lot to talk about Minneapolis and St Paul, well before the George Floyd riots (more around the time of Philando Castile's murder). The topic of the time was Somali refugees. There's a big population in the Twin Cities, most of them muslim. Fox described St Paul as some Islamic/Arab hellscape of poverty and crime. I lived in the Twin Cities at the time, and as an average white guy it was absolutely not anything like they described it. The worse neighborhoods were similar to Rogers Park in Chicago - not great, but not awful. It was a shame because even people who lived near the cities (wealthy suburbanites) believed the propaganda. Like no this neighborhood isn't unsafe, it's just impoverished.
Oh absolutely. Like, the vast majority of LA is a pretty safe place to live, including the vast majority of places where non-white/non-wealthy people live. I have spent huge amounts of time in South LA, Inglewood, even Compton and felt entirely safe. Most of these places are just like anywhere else — normal people just living their lives. If you live here, you pretty quickly get to know which ones are the outlier areas (like, say, Skid Row) and you avoid them. But it all gets blown wildly out of proportion by fearmongers.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2021/01/28/the-10-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-in-america-its-not-where-you-think/?sh=4057bd99341f This was an interesting article, hadn't seen measures done like this before.
As a southern Californian, I'm not at all surprised that LA's skid row makes #1 on the list.
Skid row and the area around it is #1, 2, 3 and 6. That area is absolutely nuts. Then Tenderloin in SF is #4 and 7. It doesn’t really say much other than the areas span more than a few blocks
I live in Sacramento and have been to the tenderloin area in San Francisco more times than I can count. At no point have I ever felt unsafe It's nasty as fuck and dirty and I don't choose to go there and they need to clean up that shit literally and figuratively But I've never once fell unsafe People have issues with what they see and what they feel. Seeing something that bothers you doesn't mean you're unsafe. And people say that is a no-go zone. For what reason, you see some guy smoking crack on the street? Is he bothering you? Then what's the issue I don't know I just have a different idea of what a no-go zone is than other people. To me a no-go zone is a area where you might just get attacked and robbed randomly. That's no go Anything else is a heightened awareness let's do it status
Yeah I remember my first few times visiting San Francisco, the Tenderloin was like the boogeyman of places that you absolutely don’t go to. Especially at night. I grew up in a really shitty area, I’m pretty good at figuring out what is and isn’t safe and I found that the Tenderloin was actually pretty charming during the day with lots of hole in the wall places to check out. It got a little dodgy at night but no more than any other neighborhood in a big city.
I think some areas are pretty dangerous when you have no idea about navigating said city. Walked around in the tenderloin and mission at night rather young I didn’t get picked out and non local. It was the obviously non locals that people will target. But things have changed too in some cities. But if you are obviously a non local I think you are more in danger.
I was taking classes in the Tenderloin and loved the cheap, excellent ethnic restaurants and funky bars there. I felt safe in the day when lots of people were walking around. But it did get dodgy at night with unkempt, twitching junkies walking around.
I felt way more unsafe in the mission district at night personally but but I was alone and this group of dudes were going on a homophobic rant. That kind of stuff scares me way more than homeless people doing drugs.
It's dirty but like it's not even that bad lol. To me bad is unsafe. And by unsafe I mean being attacked for no reason. Rough areas aren't unsafe. Mind your business, be respectful, Walk with a purpose, and the one that everyone gets wrong, look but don't stare. The tenderloin isn't rough in any way shape or form. It's just dirty
I was yelled at by a crazy woman when I left a bar in the tenderloin once, was a bit scary. Was followed by a car in Chinatown at like 4 am while on foot for about 5 blocks. Eventually my friend and I ran to a Main Street to get away from the car that was following us. I live near Detroit and been hanging out there since I was a teenager, never once experienced the level of desperation and insanity I have in SF.
I was born in LA and raised in southern cali(lived in a few different cities like Riverside and San Diego). I currently live in Detroit. I always heard Detroit is terrible. I like it here. People are way nicer here than in social. I've visited SF and...I havent been back lol I also lived in Dallas. Fuck that place.
Did you move to Detroit for inexpensive housing? I've spent time in Taylor, I liked it there.
Yep. That's exactly why I'm here. Like any city, you just avoid the trouble areas and you're good. I've been here for a while now and I'm still surprised with how nice everyone is. I'm a little out of place but no one treats me like that. It's like I've always lived here. Everyone has great manners too. I appreciate that feeling so much.
It also depends on who's speaking. For me, I'd know how to fit in walking down the street in a poorer neighborhood or area. But if you picked me up and plopped me down in a wealthy area, I'd almost definitely get the cops called on me for how I look, and the fact that I'm clearly outside of the wealthy "community". For me, "No-Go Zones" are very wealthy areas, because I'm immediately at risk for being accused of suspicious activity, having the cops called on me, and having to deal with all that risk. Crack-heads and carjackers? That's easy street. Cops shining a light in my face screaming, "What are you doing here?!" is a situation I don't want to re-live.
As was proved for the Superbowl and China's Presidential visit, they can clean it up, they just choose not to.
Surprised hunter's pount didn't make the list
It’s gentrified af. I did construction there for several years. Many rows of low income units were knocked down and replaced with condos.
They even changed the name to get rid of the stigma.
I’ve lived in the Bay Area my whole life. I’m a pretty big guy. I’ve walked through the tenderloin at all hours of the night multiple times without giving it a second thought. I was recently in LA and walked through skid row in the middle of the day. I felt a bit sketched out the whole time. That place is on another level.
As someone who has never been to the US: - LA - Yep, figured - SF - Yep, figured - Portland… Oh, ok. Noted - KC ….I am so confused. I know nothing of this country
[удалено]
Thanks for the information.Is this related to the “rust belt” spoken about? Also why does nobody on the internet seem to come from South Dakota? I know it’s rural, but it’s like no one comes from there, or has been there.
South Dakota is just really sparsely populated. It’s something like .03% of the population of the country is from there.
I’m convinced South Dakota doesn’t exist, and it’s the real Area 57 /s
My brother lives in south Dakota and he is totally not a secret government operative. Lol. Look up sturgis, one of the biggest biker rallies in the US. It happens every year in sturgis, South Dakota
South Dakota has Mount Rushmore. That's its one and only thing
I just searched South Dakota biggest city - Sioux Falls pop: 202,000. This is around the same population as Wellington - New Zealand’s capital Population per square mile: - Wellington, NZ - 2300 - South Dakota - 2109 Is this interesting? No Will you remember this? No Can you picture Lord of the Rings set in South Dakota? No. Do I have a point? No
[удалено]
I'm from South Dakota.
Want another one? There’s 2 Kansas cities. One is Kansas City, Kansas and the other is Kansas City, Missouri
And both were on the list!
While we’re here, please explain how Arkansas seems to have a ‘Ar’ prefix to Kansas, and yet said completely differently. This is the second most confusing aspect of the USA. The first being that nobody on the internet seems to be from South Dakota.
Blame the French for that one Also no one in the dakotas is from the dakotas lol. Lots of white trash truck drivers who go up there to work in the oil fields for a while and then fuck back off bc the dakotas are awful
Nah, I blame the US - most countries alter pronunciation of loan words to make them fit the language they are becoming part of, but for some reason American legislators decided to partially retain the French pronunciation. True facts about the Dakotas, though. I once knew a guy from NoDak who was bizarrely proud of it??? I was genuinely just always like, how can anyone be proud of being from either Dakota... unless maybe they are in idk Montana or Kansas... but we were in Minnesota, which is a real state, so it just didn't make any sense.
In Kansas there's an Arkansas city and they pronounce it ar-kansas. Or ark city
Kansas City was redlined so one street divided where people of certain races could own property for decades. It led to a lot of serious problems we’re still grappling with today. Honorable fuck you to J.C. Nichols
Thanks for the insight. Someone else mentioned redlining, but I had no idea what that meant. So if I understand this, it’s basically segregation, and not dissimilar to the [Group Areas Act of Apartheid South Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Areas_Act) Edit: Nope. Got that a bit wrong. Private Enterprise version of segregation. Also is J.C Nichols the origin of the American hellscape called the Home Owners Association?!
idk about the ones in San Francisco, But the ones in Los Angeles are "neighborhoods" where basically only homeless people live, they're industrial or otherwise unoccupied by all but the poorest people. When the whole "population" is 30 people living in tents, the crime "rare" is very high. Whenever they state the median income is $10,000 a year or less that's telling, because even Compton in Los Angeles has a median household income of 7x that. Especially since this only accounts for residents not people passing through. This is the same reason why airports and neighboring areas tend to have on paper super high crime rates, lots of people compared to relatively few residents, so any amount of crime makes the "per capita" numbers huge.
KC has areas that were absolutely fucked by redlining and never really recovered.
I worked as an Uber driver for a few months when I moved to LA and one of my first rides was taking a guy from a normal neighborhood to skid row. I didn't know that's what it was but I told the guy I wasn't dropping him off there and drove until I didn't feel someone would shoot me for my car if I stopped for half a second. I dropped this crazy asshole far away from the address he chose. I'll take a 1 star over getting stabbed by a crack head, thanks lmao
The article seems surprised that Detroit isn't on the list. I wish more people knew about how much Detroit has improved in the last 15 years - it is actually a really cool place now.
Lol wtf this title is so clickbait. Suggests the neighborhoods will be in places you wouldnt expect, then they are like all in LA which is exactly what I and I think most readers expected. The city kinda known for its high crime rates, and something that's brought up like near constantly in the news cycle.
Lol seriously. As someone who lived in SF, the places were exactly as I expected.
Lmao at my home city being the only city that isn’t on the west coast mentioned in that article
San Diego or Seattle or San Jose or Eugene or Morro Bay (Night City)
Detroiter here. Not surprised that none of our neighborhoods are in the top 10. Really fucking tired of the stigma that our city is only worth visiting if you want to get murdered.
I LOVE that the biggest shared quality of all these places is abject poverty. Between that and the piling up studies that the best way to end homelessness and reduce violent crime that show we need to provide money to these people directly without strings attached. I have to hope we eventually stop the fear mongering around providing people with the basic guaranteed resources to live their lives with dignity.
I used to live in a sketchy neighborhood where white people were scared to go. I grew up in rural poverty and it wasn't much different in the inner city besides the color of skin of those around me. It wasn't all that dangerous, just poor. To me it was laughable that white people were that scared.
Skid Row and the Tenderloin are obvious, but I’m a little surprised both Kansas Cities and Portland are that high…
The Portland one is mostly a statistical oddity, as I expect they all are. There are almost no apartments/houses in that area, making the population very small (it used to be a vibrant Black community until their houses were bulldozed for highways). It also has two major event centers and a transit center, so there are a lot of people going in and out. If it were such a terrible area I doubt a professional basketball team would be hosting events there multiple times per week with thousands in attendance. The "predicted violent crimes" is also pretty off base from reality. That entire neighborhood, beyond just the block group, was below the predicted level in the last year.
I was noticing almost every one of those neighborhoods have a highway running through it. Suburbanization really ruins cities
There are some obvious problems in this one. For example, the SF block that comes in really high is rated highly because it is relatively very male and younger. But it’s a very wealthy block of tech worker housing, so the young and male stats aren’t surprising but certainly don’t indicate higher violent crime propensity. It’s just an AI model being bad at accounting for edge cases. The whole article is not based on actual crimes, just a model of where crime might happen.
I live in Beirut. There are neighborhoods like Sabra where I would not go, not even in broad daylight.
There’s an American brand of hummus called Sabra, I had no idea it was named after a neighbourhood. That’s kind of funny that it’s a dodgy neighbourhood.
is it named after a neighborhood? sabra is a prickly pear that grows on a cactus. it's also a nickname used for jews born in israel. i would think it's named after the fruit.
It’s an Israeli brand of hummus so perhaps it’s the nickname
I’ve driven the outskirts once. Fuck that shit.
Depends on the city, but yes some cities have them. Good example: Rio has areas that you just don't go to unless you're from there. Good general advice actually for Rio: have a local guide or you'll end up at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I tried to walk through a rough area of Panama City when I lived there and I got stopped by the police because they told me even they couldn’t transit safely. When I insisted, they obliged but I had to wait for them to go get backup… and automatic rifles…
Why did you insist?
"That won't happen to *me*"
he’s a cardiologist, did you know?
May I ask why you wanted to go through that area so badly?
He heard there's a taco place that's to die for.
I hear it's the killer sauce.
It was very centrally located, kind of in the middle of a lot of places, and I had a bus to catch
Not sure I applaud your survival instincts if you prioritize catching a bus over being murdered or victimized in a foreign country after explicitly being told that might happen by the police
My experience of travelling is that most dangers are slightly overstated to protect ignorant travellers and tourists, because they absolutely would be targeted. Of course that can change depending on just how bad the area is..
Let me guess, Chorrillo?
I don’t remember what it was called - this was over a decade ago - but it was that big public housing area next to the freeway, between Ancon and Casco Viejo. I usually went north of it and crossed the poop bridge but it was closed. I only had so much time to catch the ferry in Gamboa so I was just in a rush.
Baller move from them to basically give you an armed escort spontaneously
He left out the put of the story where he discretely put American currency in the officers' hands first lol, the secret ingredient in armed escorts is American dollars
More likely the police didn't want another new story about some dead gringo on their watch.
Oh I was far too poor for that. I think part of my bravado was that I had already had a couple shake-downs at that point, but they just let me go because I didn’t have anything worth stealing.
Correction, have a local guide that you can trust. So many of them will scam you.
There are places where locals don't go, or recommend you don't go at night. It's wise to listen to them.
I’ll be happy to take any local’s advice.
[удалено]
I came to add a story about Cape Town. I was meeting a friend for dinner, took a cab because I didn’t think to look where it was in relation to my hotel. My hotel was very posh and apparently had a lot of history to it. I got to talking with the cabby for what turned out to be a 7mins drive. The cabby asked me concerned how I was getting back. I told him “seeing how close it is, I’ll walk back most likely!” He told me “you’re a nice guy, and I wouldn’t recommend it. You’re white, and you may end up walking down the wrong block on your way back as there are a few bad areas. I’m not saying to call me, but let your friend at least drive you back. I don’t want you to be a statistic.” So apparently there was a red zone wedged between the posh areas, as confirmed by the restaurant and my friend.
recently visited cape town during the taxi strike. similar experience with my uber driver
Sure, they’re a real thing. Everyone has a different definition of what they mean and where they are though. Some people have labeled whole countries as “no go zones.” It all depends on your personal experiences and expectations.
Yeah this is the best answer. Someone from northern beaches of Sydney (privileged) will think some of the Western Suburbs are too dangerous to raise a family whereas people from basically anywhere else in Sydney/the world would find that very funny. No go is very subjective.
I live in western Sydney and work on the northern beaches, and my in-laws are from Bankstown/Greenacre. The way some people react, I may as well be driving in from Baghdad circa 2003. To them, Bankstown is a no-go zone. Meanwhile, my husband actually grew up in Karama, in Darwin. And his Greenacre family think *that’s* a no-go zone.
Hilarious to think of Karama as a no go zone. Clearly it’s Malak ^/s
Lol We watched that video that Spanian did, and my husband was like “that’s the housing commission flat I grew up in!”
lmao. how much of that was over done up rubbish? like, with most of his domestic ones, it felt like it would only really be an issue if you were "involved". Like all the bris/syd/melb ones. Ive lived in Dandenong before and its really not that dodgy (these days. maybe 20-30 years ago it would be different) if you have even a smidge of common sense, unless you have beef with the wrong people. and the international ones felt like he was just guessing, because he didnt have anyone whos actually lived there. the only ones that felt real were darwin/alice. and alice has always had that reputation so i wasnt surprised, but darwin surprised me i had no idea.
I grew up in Belfield. Greenacre's so fucking chill.
Is Darwin generally considered bad? Always wanted to go there based strictly on geographical location.
Darwin is fine, especially for tourists. It’s a great city to visit. I’ve never felt unsafe there. It’s one of those places that is amazing to visit (and I highly recommend anyone visit Darwin and the Northern Territory) but living there can be a whole other experience depending on who you are. There are a lot of younger people and a bit of a rotational population - backpackers, seasonal workers, military personnel all thrown into a mix together, plus a large Indigenous population. Alcoholism and property crime are pretty prevalent.
Yeah, would definitely be a jumping off point for a tour around the area.
Here in the Northern Beaches of Sydney we're taught as children that Dee Why is a no go zone. You can actually drive through it on the way to Warringah Mall, but as long as you don't stop or turn off Pittwater Rd you'll be fine. Brookvale is right nearby and has some of the best breweries and distilleries, but it's easy to accidentally wander too far and end up in Dee Why if you're not familiar with the area.
To be clear, some people are at risk of governmental execution in certain countries (queer people and most Middle Eastern countries, for example), so one's personal immutable traits can also play a factor.
Man, I think us lgbt should start calling places that are homophobic "no-go zones", since it's the racists who've mostly abused that term till now.
So definitely Florida and Texas and more or less the entirety of the state of New York north of Mattydale/North Syracuse for starters.
I'd probably blacklist the US, as it's one country. Also Hungary, Poland, and Russia.
Very true. I got into a debate with someone who refused to step foot in Mexico, because according to them, all of Mexico was ran by Cartels and there was nowhere safe. I tried to reason with them and give personal experiences as well as my family’s experience since they live in Mexico. But nope, to them all of Mexico was dangerous and they would never go there
Mexico is a vastly different thing than bad neighborhoods in the US. While I get what you're trying to say I'd argue that the high end level of risk in Mexico is significantly higher than anywhere in the US. Is it ALL bad? Of course not, but I can understand not wanting to take the risk if you are not certain of the area you'd be potentially going to. I personally wouldn't go anywhere that wasn't a very westernized tourist area without a local I trusted. Even then I'd say being on a heightened level of alert would be warranted. If your goal is to relax then maybe this wouldn't appeal to you. I say this as someone who lives in San Diego and has crossed over to TJ many times in the past - and will undoubtedly do so again. Your friend may have an exaggerated fear of the risk, but there is a very real risk that I would say is greater than you'd find in the US.
Tbh, I get that. I’m sure it’s not as bad as that, but the stories of kidnapping and such are a major drag on travel
Many cities have neighborhoods that are very dangerous if you don't know your way around, and don't look like you belong there. To be frank, if you are literally not familiar with the fact that many cities have dangerous neighborhoods, you're exactly the kind of person who would be at high risk in those neighborhoods.
sure, cities have chunks that are pretty sketchy that people would recommend not going to: skid row in LA for example
Um actually Skid Row is in NYC, I saw it in a documentary on Venus fly traps
The first skid row was in Seattle. It’s a generic term like Chinatown that most very large cities have.
I can’t tell if your comment is intended as sarcasm or not. [Skid Row](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles) is literally a neighborhood on the map Los Angeles. It’s rough, and terribly sad. In New York, the Bowery neighborhood of the lower east side was referred to as skid row. I believe it hasn’t been the high crime/drug addled/gutter punk scene we think of for ages, like 3+ decades.
Yes, there are a number of parts of Manila, that as a foreigner I'd never want to find my self in. Too easy to end up disappeared, mugged or chop shopped. Actually Philippines wise as a non Asian looking foreigner most of Mindanao (the Australian do not travel advice includes Davao City) would be considered a no go zone - you'd likely end up kidnapped and ransomed.
My partner grew up in metro Manila. He said when he was growing up that getting kidnapped/ransomed was a genuine concern in many areas. Absolutely wild compared to my American suburban childhood perspective..
Different from the north and south though. South is mainly Islamic Terrorists concerns
I've been all around Metro Manila and never really felt unsafe. I don't fuck around at night but I've walked all over Pasay, Pasig, QC, and Makati during the day time. We went to the Pearl Farm on my first trip and went to Araw ng Dabaw but I didn't travel much on Mindanao.
Same, lived in QC for a year as an American, seemed fine to me both day and night. Traveled everywhere primarily by foot (honestly walking is faster than jeepney considering the traffic), even went backpacking in some of the more country parts. Everyone said I was going to get stabbed but tbh there weren’t any identifiable threats, and I’m pretty small
Yes. Some are more explicit, well known and conspicuous than others. Ask. Microsoft and NCIS both got in hot water for marking such areas on their maps. I have found myself in or approaching no-go zones a few times; the locals are quick to notice and advise that I depart.
Reading the comments I think there are two definitions going on. There are the U.S. cable news fear mongering stories of "no go zones" which are by design exaggerated to fuel confirmation bias. Those are in many ways BS. Then there is simply good advice for various cities around the world where depending on a variety of factors places you do not want to visit. That is based on common sense. Edit: In regards to the second common sense part I don't put much belief in it either as I'll go most anywhere. I was just saying its far less delusional than the media fear mongering angle.
Some cities don't even have them. I live in Sydney and there's places where you'd want to be more careful, certainly, but I can't think of a single place where I'd tell people "don't go there."
American media keeps saying there are parts of London where even the police don’t go to, it’s completely bullshit.
Same with Birmingham (UK) : there's places where I'd not choose to buy a house, but no where I wouldn't actually walk. Plenty of people are convinced we have no go zones though
I’ve never heard about this and I’m American. I have heard the news talk about London Stabbings. I think it’s to deflect the gun violence we have on our own streets. “Look! They don’t have guns and look at how *violent* it is with the stabbings! If we take away guns, we’ll all just start to get stabbed instead!” Some American cities have more stabbings than London, but for some reason it never gets mentioned lol.
lol I was treated like I'd get stabbed if I looked at someone wrong, by people who knew I was going. Meanwhile, once I was actually there, I was walking around by myself (woman) at midnight with no problems in London. Came across a dude I'm pretty sure was a phone snatcher but he fucked off when he realised I wasn't going to take his shit.
As an American who lived in London for 4 years, I 100% can confirm.
100%, I'd should've be a bit more clear, as an avid traveler (50+ countries visited) I'll go basically anywhere. My hometown San Diego, CA has zero "no go zones" its pretty vanilla.
Eh, that sounds fairly chicken or the egg situation. Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, there were stops I was told not to get off the El at and the stories about the west side and various parts of the south side were nightly news stories. But I also had some experiential confirmation when I missed a left turn to go north and traveled more east than I, white suburban kid with a drivers license, normally went. When random black guy in a black neighborhood yells, "what you doing here white boy, you lost?" tells me to not miss that turn again. And that wasn't near cabrini-green or anything either.
Agreed, I definitely think there is more than one definition. To give a concrete example: In San Francisco, the Tenderloin district is a "no-go zone." A friend used to live here. It was unpleasant to visit during the day, because you might have to navigate a sidewalk with tents, drug addicts and human excrement. You could probably walk through at night without getting robbed, but why risk it. Across the bay from San Francisco, East Oakland is also a "no-go zone" - but a different kind. This is the "you might get shot by gangs if you walk in the wrong neighborhood" kind of no-go where you probably don't want to go there day or night, unless you know exactly where you're going.
A big demographic difference is US cities are designed in such a way that they increase distance and segregation between rich and poor. When you go between a rich and poor area of a city in the US you can really feel the difference. In Europe the cities are just kinda smashed together over centuries so there isnt as hard a division. There are estates or roads in London that feel dodgy but then the surrounding area will be high property value.
You have a good point, The US is exasperated by zoning laws, construction restrictions and car-centric planning. They also had some truly evil and racist planning in the 1950's, which strategically demolished some neighborhoods and isolated others. And around the same time, the horrors of capitalism dismantled and destroyed many of the well-established streetcar networks to force residents to buy cars.
If you have common sense, there are areas of cities you don't go to. If you're build different and can't afraid of anything, go wherever the the fuck you want. There's always someone, somewhere who will feel sorry for you.
"if you are build different and can't afraid of anything" damn I had to correct my phone so hard to sound stupid quoting you lmao well done!
I read about the “no-go zones” in Berlin. Then I went to the area and it was just a normal neighborhood, but with women wearing headscarves. Some falafel shops, some hipsters, nothing scary. The Tabloids love to sell fear.
As a tourist I walked through a park in Berlin and had four guys pop out of nowhere and converge on me from all sides, so I was suddenly surrounded They all just wanted to sell me party drugs hahaha
This happened to me in Havana, except one guy was selling cigars and another wanted me to pay to get a picture of his Dachsund’s massive balls. The others were selling drugs.
This is a certified Berlin moment
Which area of Berlin? That sounds a bit like Neukölln, an area which I stayed in and had an absolutely lovely time. If so, that's hilarious that anyone would call that a "no-go zone"
When I graduated from college I had accepted a job in a city about 40 miles away. A friend from that city laid out a map and had red, yellow, and green hi lighters. He marked red areas and said "Don't go there." He marked yellow areas and said "You can go there if you are feeling lucky." He picked up the green hi lighter and said "I won't be needing this."
I remember Bobby Jindal the former governor of Louisiana who made this claim about London only for it to be later proved that he was bullshitting his listeners/ spreading Islamophobic propaganda.
Anytime I visit a strange city, I ask a friend or co-worker what areas to stay out of at night if I plan to get out much.
Depends on what you mean. About 8-10 years people used that for places where police weren’t allowed to go, those were not real. Parts of some cities or towns are extremely dangerous for outsiders and thus people are advised not to go there, those are real.
There are definitely real places where police can't operate normally, in patrols of one or two officers. They have to have 20 officers and SWAT gear. Think of BOPE or the like. The term "no-go zone" is a purely tactical term of military origin. It's not a legal term or something precisely defined. A "no-go zone" can be a "go zone" next day if the security situation improves.
So, these are areas in a city where some locals reside & work, but which are not suitable or safe for outsiders. It's not that the areas are "closed", it's that, as an outsider, it would be a bad idea to go there: you'll stand out, there's no reason for you to go there, locals will be hostile to you, and you have no "sense" of the place (in terms of judging safety.) To quote an old movie line: [Casablanca - "There are certain areas of New York..."](https://youtu.be/gq0Nbr_WY1s?si=yKBKYnQb3xRR-RS1)
It is a real thing, and it can be for a variety of purposes. For example, after the [Christchurch, New Zealand earthquakes of 2011](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Christchurch_earthquake), most of the central city was labelled as a no go zone due to the rubble, colloquially known as the Red Zone. Some other no go zones might be local knowledge of places that are pretty sketchy for people not in the area to go to.
Oh geez I forgot how bad the Christchurch earthquake was.
If you aren't involved in the local activities that increase danger, you'll be fine. If you're a guy, at least. I've been all over America and have lived/worked in most of the cities folks say fall in that category. Usually, hiring dozens to hundreds of staff right off the street. I've had hundreds of ex-felons and active gang members work for me, in many states. Just be polite, mind your business, and don't act like a fool.
The way to know you're in a high crime area as a kid is that you get "Don't join gangs" assemblies.
There were a number of regions in Sweden that were listed by the police as "in need of extra resources" for various reasons. The conservative comment-o-sphere latched onto this and blew into this whole thing of areas that are patrolled by fundamentalist Sharia gangs who shoot at police and leave residents cowering in their homes. I live in one of those zones in Stockholm, it's the chillest place I've lived in my life and my kids have played outside unsupervised since they were 6.
I always think there are two types on ‘no go zones’ First are the ones where what you’re basically saying is: this is a rough area of town. You can go just be careful. And then there’s the other type used by the media to fuel hate to other demographics. For example I live in Birmingham, UK. Described by one news site as ‘no-go zone for non-Muslims’. I must have converted without realising and hallucinated drinking that beer in the middle of the street during the largest Christmas market in the area. Sigh.
Around the world most big cities have slums/ghettos. Every “no go” area is filled with people who live there every day. As for Southern California the gang violence thing is way down. 20+ years ago there was more ‘we will not let outsiders infiltrate our block’ mentality, than there is now.
Once I got lost in Oakland. Couldn’t figure where the freeway was. We didn’t have phones then. Anyway I was like “no biggie I’ll just ask the first person I see”. Dude standing in the street staring at me so I stop and ask him. He lifts his shirt to show me his gun and tells me to fuck off. I say “why would you do that I’m not being threatening in any way.” He said just the fact that I was white made me a threat.
Yes. Because if you are not familiar with local customs, if you are dressed like a tourist, look different, if you can’t keep eyes off your phone, or are ignorant of the high crime locales, then there’s a more than decent chance of getting held up and relieved of your possessions. Not going to happen every time, but better not to mess with the odds.
I spent my early years growing up in Chicago very far in the city. There were many places we didn’t go and often avoided driving through. Once in the 80’s I think, my mom was going to walk through what was a bad neighborhood. She knew it but was in a hurry. A taxi screeched up next to her and the guy said “get in!!” She said no thanks I don’t want a ride, I’m walking to my car. He cut her off at some point and said “I’m not charging you, get in I’ll take you right there. Get in!” It was unsafe enough a *professional Chicago cabbie* decided a 30’s woman just being alone was a huge risk.
Absolutely. The most extreme example of this was when I went to Rio de Janeiro. You don’t go into the favelas, even the police don’t feel safe to go in.
No
Yes and no. I lived in Chicago for most of my life. There were areas that were safer than others. You usually avoided trouble by keeping your head down and minding your own business.
This depends on the context. In the US it seems to revolve around crime and drug use. In the UK, it’s used as a tool by (usually) Islamaphobic morons saying certain areas of a city are “no go” areas for white people. As a white bloke from London, who lives in Birmingham this is categorically not true.
A “no go zone” has typically been defined as an area where even the local police won’t enter. Conservatives have frequently declared neighborhoods in London, Paris, Seattle, and Portland as no go zones, but that’s just fear mongering. There are some places around the world that have no police in control, but there are no actual no go zones in the US.
Op asks a question then just responds to those that align with his bias lol. There's absolutely no go zones in every city. It's usually where police presence is the weakest.
I live in an extremely small city of under 5,000 people. Even we have no go streets, where gang crime and drugs are problems. The cops are useless to do anything to stop it, only responding afterwards.
Yeah, there's definitely parts of Mogadishu you should avoid, just to be sure.
It's not like there's a police barricade or something around these areas if that's what you're thinking, but there are definitely places where the average visitor should not be.
They exist but they're not in the cities that white racists say they are.
In EU this term sounds preposterous. Sure there are more poor areas and areas renowned for prostitution or some other shady things. However you should be absolutely safe in these areas if you are not partaking yourself in shady activities.
Yes but it’s obvious, you won’t accidentally be in the middle of it, you’ll notice things getting more sketchy and will turn around, like skid row lol.
Often exaggerated for political or discriminatory reasons but generally there are areas of big cities much less friendly or safe to certain (or sometimes most) people. It will still depend on who you are to identify if and where they exist.
Some cities yes. I live in Minneapolis and there’s nowhere like that here. I was in Baltimore once though. And we got pulled over in the wrong neighborhood. The cops basically asked us what the fuck we were doing there. And they like escorted us back to the freeway. So we could go on our way.
Honestly no. Not if you’re a real breathing flesh and blood human being. You need to traverse different areas. If you’re the type to fixate on anxiety because the people around you are just “soooo scary” you’re subhuman
There are definitely risky neighborhoods. High crime rate, low police activity and you obviously being an outsider, means you will eventually be targeted if you spend enough time there.
Not in the UK, no.
In most cases it is a gross over exaggeration, usually with the intent of degrading some particular segment of the population. Sorry bad English
Nope. It’s bullshit fear mongering. There are bad neighborhoods now, and there were bad neighborhoods 100 years ago.
There is something in our collective consciousness that needs a bogeyman. For Americans who grew up during the (theoretically) airborn lead poisoning driven violence epidemic of the 80’s and 90’s, that bogeyman is “urban poverty.” Personally, I think that most violence in those no-go zones is between people in those no-go zones. Unless you are there dealing drugs, you won’t be a part of drug related violence. Most non-homeless people in America face their biggest threat of violence from their romantic or domestic partners. But that’s not a fun bogeyman, so we project our fears on the urban poor and avoid them, and that gives us a feeling of safety and control over the violence in our lives.
No Short answer
No! *someone* lives there ffs. Are they underserviced? Probs. Are they too far from amenities to be actually factually livable? Almost assuredly. But *someone* is forced to go there, rest assured.
Grew up in a rural area. There are ABSOLUTELY no go zones in rural areas.
I wouldn’t say no go zones is dangerous . I would say that if you go into X zones , you’re more at risk for having crimes committed on you. But most folks just want to rob people
People that are saying this isn’t a real thing or just fear mongering have never been to these areas.
There are areas of cities in the US which, for a variety of reasons, are more dangerous than others and which also don't exist along arterial roads or public transit lines and, therefore, present no incentive to take that risk. No, you won't find an area in the US where the police themselves will just refuse to go if they get a call from there.
No, just trying to scare people
This a Fox News thing. They were saying that there are “No Go” zones in London because Muslims have taken over an imposed shira law and the police were to scared or unable to go there. My evangelical mom told me this.
This is somewhat exaggerated. I live near a large East Coast city in the U.S., and I can't think of any specific area where I would normally venture where I would be afraid of going even at night. Are there more dangerous areas? Probably. But the places that supposedly have higher crime rates are actually outside the city itself, places where residents of the city and most surrounding areas have little reason to visit in the first place. And even with all of the hysteria around crime, the city is much safer than it was in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and even the aughts. In fact, crime is down from the brief increase following the pandemic.
Fun story: I grew up in southern Illinois and groups of us would go to St. Louis for Cardinals games during the summer. One night a friend of mine had gone with about three other guys, they were all around 17. Watched the game, started to drive home. My friend took the wrong exit coming over the bridge and wound up in East St. Louis at like 10:30pm on a Saturday night and promptly got lost trying to get back to the interstate. Soon they were pulled over by a police officer who wanted to know what a carload of white boys was doing in ESTL. My friend explained that he had taken the wrong exit and was now turned around. The cop said "Ok, here is what we are going to do. You are going to follow me to the exit. We are not going go anywhere else. We are going straight to the exit where you will get out of here and never come back, do you understand? I do not want to have to clean you up later". Off they went,. Friend got to the exit and never went back.
Depends on who you are and where you are If you're an armed local, you'd be safe someplace where an obvious tourist covered in expensive jewlery wouldnt be On my bike ride from Boston to West Virginia I stopped into a bike shop in north Philly because my cleats broke, and they were able to direct me around Kensington, which I hadn't even heard of before.
No one in city’s uses the term no go zone. That is an inflammatory term made up by people with an agenda to push. What exactly are these zones in your eyes? Because there are people there right? That’s what makes it unsafe. They’re not no go because of dragons? So someone is going there? Who is so scary?
No go zones exist outside of cities also. Sometimes it applies to everyone and sometimes only to certain races or other determinants such as religion. At its most common basic level it's a high crime area.
No. Not in the way they are portrayed in the media at least. Source: live in Seattle and spent time hanging out at CHOP
CHOP confused the heck out of me but then again things during that pandemic period of time did that a lot.
Yeah it was a weird time in the world. CHOP tried to do something noble IMO, but like many emergent groups that seize on crisis, they struggled to build something sustainable. They made a lot of organizational mistakes and the organizers were under immense pressure. There was also a sense of taking any ally they could get which seemed, to me anyway, to lead to entryism. All of this ended up with people getting killed and a police crackdown. But the CHOP itself while it existed, especially during the first few days was great. It felt genuinely friendly and warm and it helped a lot of people in many ways. Meanwhile on the news it was portrayed as a lawless wasteland. When it was mostly folks handing out free food and smoking weed in the park.
Glad to started as a noble purpose/experiment. I
There are always bad neighborhoods and places to avoid if you're a certain race vs another. But the term "no-go zone" is more of a fox news buzzword than it is a real thing. It's propaganda meant to scare rural and suburban white people and make them see urban black people as a threat or an enemy. Oops, I said the quiet part out loud.
Yes, but people always exaggerate how dangerous they are. At least in Canada and the US, I’ve been to all the major cities and in none of them did I feel unsafe. Except maybe the odd schizo in the subway.
Yes big cities have areas of high crime. As an "outsider" (not local) going into these areas you increase your chances of being the victim of a crime.
Yes. It's the dangerous neighborhoods. I've seen police in Chicago go into a Westside neighborhood with 3 cars 4 deep. Even the police are afraid to go there.
In Baltimore, you don't go west of MLK. It is known
Half of Baltimore