Criminal Ratings By Cities (Chicago, Wheaton: middle-class, best city, condominium)

[HOWELL_STREET]

As I write this, I am consulting a reference book titled, "Places Rated Almanac". It is the millennium edition with a copyright of 2000. Yes, it is seven years old and so perhaps some of the ratings have changed. However, I would expect the ratings to be worse. The ISBN of this book is 0-02-863447-0. In this book there is a list of criminal ratings of 354 cities. The very best city with a score of 100 (lowest crime rate) is Johnstown, PA. The very worse city (highest crime rate) is Miami, FL with a score of zero. Chicago, Illinois has a rating of 2.27 and that is one of the highest criminal cities on the list. It is at number 346 on the list and the last one, Miami, is at 354. So if you accept this reference book, then don't move to the city of Chicago. Better yet, look at a more recent edition in your own public library to see where Chicago now stands for its crimes. So by using this reference book, I still would not recommend the City of Chicago for personal RESIDENCE during evening hours. The city is okay and even pleasant for tourists so long as you stay out of the criminal areas.

Carter Glass

[Chicago60614]

Sure, but it's been a good few years. From 97' to 05 the number of homicides in the city of Chicago went down by 40%. That's a pretty big drop for only 8 years.

The homicide rate went from 27.3 per 100,000 to 15.5 per 100,000. This is helped as well since over 112,000 new residents moved to the city during the 90's. The city hasn't seen such a low number of homicides since the 1950's.

It's even better if you compare the 10 years from 1995 to 2005. Domestic violence murders are down by 42%, child abuse murders are down by over 65%, and total murder down by 46%.

Total crimes reported citywide have been reduced from 323,909 in the early 90's to 165,377 in 2006. That's a reduction of 49%.

Violent crimes have been reduced from 90,522 to 35,290. A reduction of 61%.

I don't know why you still think the city is having a crimewave or is horribly dangerous like it tended to be 10-15 years ago.

[reppin_the_847]

HOWELL_STREET, what you fail to realize is that Chicago really is a tale of two cities, perhaps even three cities packed into one. Unlike some other cities out there, Chicago has a very large group of very affluent people that reside within its city limits. And then Chicago has a gigantic group of middle-class folks as well. And then finally Chicago does have a lot of low-income folk. The city is split along both socioeconomic and racial lines. So long as a person moving to Chicago moves to the right neighborhood and doesn't cause conflicts with others, he or she should be absolutely fine. The reason those books have such statistics are because the low-income areas of the city are SO bad, that they skew the numbers for the entire city. Some of the rougher neighborhoods on the west side & south sides are a whole DIFFERENT WORLD from say Lincoln Park on the near north side. And then on a third token you have solid, fairly safe family-oriented middle-class neighborhoods up on the northwest side such as Jefferson Park or Sauganash (very safe & probably even considered affluent as well).

Look at other large cities. The worst on that list, Miami. I've been to Miami before, and there's a stark contrast between the wealthy areas & the low-income areas. A posh neighborhood in Miami Beach for example is a world away from Little Haiti (in Miami). In NYC, an Upper East Side luxury condominium is not quite the same thing as a roach-infested, bullet-ridden housing project in the South Bronx. These bad areas are so bad, that they make the entire city look bad, when in reality even NYC has affluent & also middle-class areas in addition to the dangerous low-income & public housing areas.

Originally Posted by HOWELL_STREET

As I write this, I am consulting a reference book titled, "Places Rated Almanac". It is the millennium edition with a copyright of 2000. Yes, it is seven years old and so perhaps some of the ratings have changed. However, I would expect the ratings to be worse. The ISBN of this book is 0-02-863447-0. In this book there is a list of criminal ratings of 354 cities. The very best city with a score of 100 (lowest crime rate) is Johnstown, PA. The very worse city (highest crime rate) is Miami, FL with a score of zero. Chicago, Illinois has a rating of 2.27 and that is one of the highest criminal cities on the list. It is at number 346 on the list and the last one, Miami, is at 354. So if you accept this reference book, then don't move to the city of Chicago. Better yet, look at a more recent edition in your own public library to see where Chicago now stands for its crimes. So by using this reference book, I still would not recommend the City of Chicago for personal RESIDENCE during evening hours. The city is okay and even pleasant for tourists so long as you stay out of the criminal areas.

Carter Glass

[HOWELL_STREET]

The only thing I am trying to accomplish is for someone interested in LIVING in Chicago to be very careful where they choose to reside in the city of Chicago. To reiterate from my past threads, it only takes one incident to lose your life. Although a given neighborhood within the city of Chicago has a 'given' crime statistic for any one moment, it is constantly changing. During the day, crime is controled by the Chicago Police. However, at night, it CAN be a very different situation at any one moment. Why take a risk in the City of Chicago when there are so many more nice communities in the collar counties of Chicago?
As a teenager, I almost got stabbed in the back while watching a parade near China Town. That incident was too close for me, and so I will never change my opinion about RESIDING in the City of Chicago.
Where ever a reader chooses to live, is their own choice since I have already made mine in Wheaton, Illinois many years ago.
The statistics that I quote are not mine but from an organization who has done a lot of research.

Best Regards,

Carter Glass

[NYrules]

When in Chicago you just have to use your head, thats all. Don't be venturing into areas you don't belong and if you do end up in an area that is rather rough, then you need to do all you can to look like you belong there. Don't be going gawking at all the gang bangers and sleezeballs on the street or driving down the street with your windows down and loud music blasting as that may be a gang sign, or flashing new hand gestures to others that you just learned from some 13 year old kid on the street corner. Just mind your P's and Q's and usually you will be ok.

I agree, it only takes one incident to loose your life, so my advice to you is if you see an area changing from bad to worse, turn around, get out of there, or at the very least try to do all you can to stay on roads with lots of traffic or walk down streets that are heavily traveled and well lit. Daley has been trying to do all he can to get bad areas more heavily patrolled by police and light the dark streets up better by installing new lights that are brighter and lower to the sidewalks, but still that will only deter criminals to an extent. If you see an area that needs more light or all the lights have been burned out and they need to be replaced, call the city's 311 number and report them so they get fixed, this will help to reduce the crime to an extent and you will be helping the city become a safer place for us all.

[oakparkdude]

I'm not sure its a great revelation to people that big cities tend to have higher crime rates than upper-class suburbs. Most people who visit this forum are well aware of this and are interested in living in the city for the big city amenities that suburbs like Wheaton lack. There is such a thing as managing risk, which is why half the posts on this forum ask about which neighborhoods are the safest and which neighborhoods should be avoided.

Incidentally, I'd be curious to know what the per capita risk of motor vehicle fatality/injury is in the city versus the suburbs.

[Milliano]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

I'm not sure its a great revelation to people that big cities tend to have higher crime rates than upper-class suburbs. Most people who visit this forum are well aware of this and are interested in living in the city for the big city amenities that suburbs like Wheaton lack. There is such a thing as managing risk, which is why half the posts on this forum ask about which neighborhoods are the safest and which neighborhoods should be avoided.

Incidentally, I'd be curious to know what the per capita risk of motor vehicle fatality/injury is in the city versus the suburbs.

Health Effects of Urban Sprawl

IMO it's not very useful to use a citywide crime rate to determine whether it's safe to live in a city or not. Especially Chicago, which is a massive city, and particularily distinct neighborhoods. I've been viewing crime maps recently of San Francisco and Chicago... both show the huge degree of dynamics - one area might have virtually little/no crime, while another area a mile or two away might have many many times more crime incidents. Take SF's crime rate for example... if they got rid of all the SROs in the Tenderloin, and it might be considered one of the safest big cities in the country.

My point is, one suburb might have just as low crime as a neighborhood in the inner city, so it's unrealistic to use the crime rate of each city as a whole as a gauge of choosing where to live. Especially comparing cities of different regions... city boundaries are quite variable -- so many people live in suburbs that comparing one large city to another's crime rate is almost pointless.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Milliano

Health Effects of Urban Sprawl

IMO it's not very useful to use a citywide crime rate to determine whether it's safe to live in a city or not. Especially Chicago, which is a massive city, and particularily distinct neighborhoods. I've been viewing crime maps recently of San Francisco and Chicago... both show the huge degree of dynamics - one area might have virtually little/no crime, while another area a mile or two away might have many many times more crime incidents. Take SF's crime rate for example... if they got rid of all the SROs in the Tenderloin, and it might be considered one of the safest big cities in the country.

My point is, one suburb might have just as low crime as a neighborhood in the inner city, so it's unrealistic to use the crime rate of each city as a whole as a gauge of choosing where to live. Especially comparing cities of different regions... city boundaries are quite variable -- so many people live in suburbs that comparing one large city to another's crime rate is almost pointless.

Oh, its too hard to think about different neighborhoods within a city of 227 square miles. So much easier to take out of date statistics from over 7 years ago and write off the whole city as a cesspool of mayhem and murder. I'm moving to Johnstown, PA.

[AQUEMINI331]

How does the Places Rated Almanac have Chicago crime statistics yet even the FBI doesn't use them, if it has them at all?


If you notice whenever the FBI releases its crime stats each year, no city in Illinois is ever included on the list. It has something to do with some kind of technicality - what's considered one crime in Illinois is considered another crime in the other 49 states. I admit I'm not sure about the exact details on that one but I do know that no Illinois city is ever on the FBI's list (Chicago and East St. Louis are two cities in Illinois that I'm sure would make the FBI's list if IL was included on it). This makes me wonder why would the "Places Rated" Almanac use it if even the FBI won't use it.

[CarolinaBredChicagoan]

From Wikipedia.

Cities of Illinois are not included in this ranking, due to unmatch in rape cases between Illinois State police data and FBI data. Chicago would be #52 in "Most Dangerous" rankings if calculated on 5 crimes except rape.