Different perception of crime in Chicago? (violent crime, neighborhood, income)

[14thandYou]

As an outsider (someone who neither lives in Chicago nor NYC), I wonder how much of the difference in the "perception" of crime between the two cities relates to the fact that Manhattan is separated by a body of water from the other NYC burroughs, and with it some of the city's most crime-infested neighborhoods? I could be completely off the mark with this, but if the Loop, north lakefront and other "safe" neighborhoods in the north of the city were geographically situated on an island, would people feel differently?

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

As an outsider (someone who neither lives in Chicago nor NYC), I wonder how much of the difference in the "perception" of crime between the two cities relates to the fact that Manhattan is separated by a body of water from the other NYC burroughs, and with it some of the city's most crime-infested neighborhoods? I could be completely off the mark with this, but if the Loop, north lakefront and other "safe" neighborhoods in the north of the city were geographically situated on an island, would people feel differently?

Separation has something to do with it, but I think the bigger thing at play here is the "critical mass" of the middle and working class neighborhoods that provide a "safe zone" for people to congregate and live.

NYC is 2.5x the size of Chicago. There is a bigger zone around the commercial zone in NYC where high concentration of poverty is impossible due to the cost of rents and living in that area. As a result, most of Manhattan and good portions of Brooklyn or NJ are considered "safe". Chicago's safe zone within the ring of poverty is smaller. A place like St. Louis has an even smaller zone. In NYC, most of the residents within the low crime zone can live 2+ miles away from the nearest high crime area. In Chicago that is more difficult, and in STL, it is nearly impossible.

If I go 5 blocks from home in the "other direction", howe safe do I feel? I think this is where the perception of safety kicks in.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

NYC is 2.5x the size of Chicago. There is a bigger zone around the commercial zone in NYC where high concentration of poverty is impossible due to the cost of rents and living in that area. As a result, most of Manhattan and good portions of Brooklyn or NJ are considered "safe". Chicago's safe zone within the ring of poverty is smaller. A place like St. Louis has an even smaller zone. In NYC, most of the residents within the low crime zone can live 2+ miles away from the nearest high crime area. In Chicago that is more difficult, and in STL, it is nearly impossible.

I totally agree with and see your point, but this is pretty inaccurate nonetheless. Part of that is because the southwest side of the city is so safe and and pretty much all of the northside is a war zone.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I totally agree with and see your point, but this is pretty inaccurate nonetheless. Part of that is because the southwest side of the city is so safe and and pretty much all of the northside is a war zone.

You have to temper that with public transit overlay, proximity to ST, and the type of housing that is available/desirable to young professionals too. I'm not saying the zone is perfectly concentric w/ respect to downtown (hence the SW side not being as safe as the NW side, which has tons of middle class families, in your example).

What I'm saying is that if you compare two fairly similar areas, the area in Chicago will have closer proximity to high crime areas. Wicker Park vs. the neighborhoods close to Manhattan in Brooklyn like Prospect Park, Cobble Hill, etc.

You can live in certain areas of Brooklyn and be miles away from high crime areas. You can't say the same for Wicker Park/Bucktown/Ukrainian Village. You can live in the 70s and be a world away from higher crime areas of Manhattan (which have moved north into the 100s), but if you're on the edge of Lakeview, there are some pockets right down the road in Uptown.

Said simply: walk out of a random office in mid-town. How many "bad" areas can you get to in a 45 minute commute using public transit? Now do the same in Chicago. Chicago's "sheltered" playground is a lot smaller, which is why the crime differential seems even greater than it actually is.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by citylove101

As often as I've visited the city, it seems to me that there is a wholly different perception of crime in Chicago than in my hometown--and maybe other big cities as well--and it has nothing to do with the raw numbers of serious crimes or crime rates.

Chicagoans I've talked to tend to beleive that crime is incredibly random and that bad things can happen anywhere in the city to a far greater degree than what I've heard here in NYC. Here, most people figure that if you're in a decent nabe your worries about crime are sharply diminshed. Stay on the Upper East Side or Riverdale or Park Slope and you don't really think about it too much.

But in Chicago it seems as if people feel the threat and talk about it no matter where they go, from Rogers Park to the Gold Coast to Beverly (not just those specific nabes, just using them as examples). Chicagoans don't just worry about crime in "bad" neighborhoods, your Austin or Englewood, say, but in almost every neighborhood--so much so that the worry about geting mugged/robbed/raped/shot seems far more pervasive.

For Chicagoans who've been to other cities and can compare, is my perception of this right or am I totally off-base? Does Chicago worry about randomized crime a lot more than other places?

I haven't lived there in over a decade but this was actually the OPPOSITE of the feeling I got there.

Shooting\assaulting\robbing someone (especially a tourist) in a *nice* neighborhood brought down a huge wave of police heat.

As long as it's gang members getting shot in bad neighborhoods....not so much.

It may be a more temporary phenomenon too give the recent spate of wilding attacks.

[edsg25]

We've given a lot of coverage here about how Manhattan's island status has buffered it from the crime across the bridges and tunnels in the outer boroughs.

There is another factor in the whole safety/crime dynamic that is island related that I don't think anyone has picked up on yet.

Manhattan may well be the most linear island on the planet. Its shape is paramount to the type of place it is.

Yes, NYC and Metro NYC are centralized in the sense that Manhattan is the center, arguably the most glorious center in the world.

But within Manhattan, though smallest among NYC boroughs, there is still plenty of land that makes this place far more than New York's CBD.

The two thirds of the island from downtown to midtown to the upper east and west sides, the portions along the southern half of Central Park all combine to make up "the center" of the New York universe. 2/3 of Manhattan island.

And within those 2/3, what with two business districts in lower and midtown Manhattan and endless neighborhoods that also are fully part of the core, there is no real centralization. It's all "there"....all part of the "there". Nobody on those 2/3 of the island is more than a mile or so from the shores of either the Hudson or the East River. As subway lines travel north/south on the narrow island, nobody is removed from rapid transit; everybody is connected.

That natural georgraphy got a boost from mankind. The New York grid is democratic by nature. No place on it is put on a pedestal. No streets from many directions converge to elevate one stop from another. Indeed, other than the old Indian trail that is Broadway, the rigid grid has precious few diagonal streets. Even the numbered names of streets and avenues is democratic in nature and raises all parts to equality.

You could never have had the extremely dense, Emerald City like core functioning nature of Manhattan if the island's length and width were more in line. The linear nature of things confined the wealth and allowed it to grow from south to north with even the furthest out sections being connected to the linear transportation system.

That's a far cry different from Chicago, the ultimate core and concentric ring city. You need look no further than the Loop and other high density downtown areas and then look at both a road map and a rapid transit map to see that Chicago arguably is the most centralized of all US cities, the one where all spokes come out of the core.

[pipedreams2]

Chicago has tons of gangs and street corner drug dealers. Although these individuals live in certain parts of the city, they still travel downtown and into other neighborhoods for various reasons. No matter what you hear Chicago is certainly the most dangerous big city in the Nation.

It doesn't help that our local government is totally corrupt and like others have said in other post, the local media has nothing better to write about. Front page is always about murder, rape, corruption and murder...REPEAT.

[pipedreams2]

And because Chicago is 3x's smaller than NYC, I also think we're also affected by the crime element due to a smaller proximity.

[chitownperson]

Some people will play down the crime issue here for whatever reason (city pride, ignorance, perception... take you pick), while some others will blow it out of proportion (again, take you pick of reasons). Personal perception doesn't change what crime is actually like in Chicago, but it does affect how safe or unsafe a person may feel here.

The stats are out there, and you can make comparisons and judge for your selves. Of course, all data must be accompanied with analysis.

[Bird4Prez]

As some people have said, a decent level of street smarts and knowing your way around the city should keep you pretty safe. Of course, there are some random wild thiungs that happen without any rhyme or reason (I remember a domestic related murder in an Old Navy store in the middle of the day a few years back). But I have been here since the times of 600 murders a year to the much less current rate and I have never felt a serious threat to my well-being. Unfortunately, certain neighborhoods are soooooo much more violent and dangerous that it negatively skews the city's crime statistics. The reasons why places like Austin, Lawndale, and both Englewoods (to name a few) are so dangerous, is a topic for a different post