The Fine Line Between Perceived "Street Cred" and Perceived Danger

We've all been there. A friend calls us up and tells us they've found this great ethnic restaurant that's in (insert your favorite inner city area here) that's got "serious street cred." Just what is the difference between an area with "street cred" and what people classify as a "dangerous urban area?" There exists an odd dichotomy between the two when it comes to cities. In the case of places like New York and Philadelphia, people seem more willing to venture into an area that is, shall we say, "grittier," than some of the more sanitized (Times Square, South Street, etc...) in order to gain a more authentic experience whether that means dining, drinking, or whathaveyou. The other side of this is the advice you tend to get from people when seeking a destination in a major city. For those "in the know" about these sorts of things, places that are clean and well lit may as well be not even worth passing through let alone exploring. For example, if one is planning to go to New York City and consults a knowledgeable person on where to go, they are often presented with a laundry list of places to avoid because they are where the "tourists" go. In New York this could mean anything from the Fridays in Times Square to one of the nameless Italian joints in the Village. No one ever wants to go (or at least think they're going) to where the "tourists" go. So why is it that Trenton is viewed as dangerous rather than a place worthy of street cred? Have we really become that suburban? Perhaps the even more bizarre aspect of this equation is when an area loses it's street cred and people begin to lament the change from a gritty "locals only" atmosphere. This kind of shift has happened everywhere from Alphabet City to the Bowery-can Trenton find a happy medium?

Obviously Trenton has problems in the police department, one of which is the fuzzy math and Enron style crime statistics keeping, and gangs have entrenched themselves into certain areas. That being said, of course there are some neighborhoods that are not safe to be in after dark, in what city is that NOT the case? Granted they are many orders of magnitude larger, but there are unsafe areas of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and so on, but does that stop people from pouring into those cities at night or on weekends to eat, shop, and be entertained? In light of this, why must Trenton suffer the "don't go there at night" label? Of course the surrounding municipalities seem to have made up their mind about Trenton, resolving not to go there at all. There are too many factors at work driving this mentality, but let me unequivocally say that it's B.S. Lo and behold, yesterday I managed to drive into the city via Route 1 South to Perry Street and eventually made my way to South Warren where I got a haircut, a coffee, and stopped into the local bookshop to see what was going on. It was a beautiful sunny day, people were on the street, no gunshots were heard and no criminals were to be found. The "Wild West" view held by many in the Greater Trenton area (Yes, Lawrentians, Hamiltonians, Ewingites, and Princetonians, you live in the Greater Trenton area) is simply untrue and causes more damage to the city than actual violence. Why? Very simple. In "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," Jane Jacobs makes a startlingly basic observation which should be evident to all city planners but is painfully beyond most: In urban areas large numbers of observers (observers meaning everyday people going about their business-not police or other law enforcement personnel) are the single greatest deterent to nearly all forms of deviance, corruption, and lawlessness. Put simply, the more people that live, work, and play in Trenton, the better. No matter whether one looks at a simple mugger trying to score some money to get high, or a major drug running operation, no one committing these acts wants witnesses. Think about this the next time you think about Trenton.

Slan go foill