That's gotta be similarly true for a lot of major cities though don't you think? Vancouver, BC is broadly quite safe, unless you drive, have a car centric cycling route, or walk down certain streets in the downtown Eastside during particular times of the week or day alone

But a city is the sum of all its residents. Saying that the well-off parts of the city are safe and ergo, the city is safe reeks of incredible privilege - that crime is okay as long as the people who suffer from it are the poor.

There is a massive difference between "an overall very safe city with a few small dangerous neighborhoods/areas" and "an overall dangerous city with a few small safe neighborhoods/areas".

I suppose that's true, but is it as true if there's literally only one area that most people should probably be much more cautious in for objectively more intense safety reasons or unpredictability?