U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Where would you rather live?
San Jose, CA 3 3.00%
El Paso, TX 6 6.00%
San Diego, CA 17 17.00%
Los Angeles, CA 19 19.00%
New York, NY 31 31.00%
Austin, TX 8 8.00%
Fresno, CA 0 0%
Portland, OR 10 10.00%
Louisville, KY 3 3.00%
Charlotte, NC 3 3.00%
Voters: 100. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2017, 07:17 PM
 
Location: First Hill, Seattle
5,468 posts, read 5,771,813 times
Reputation: 7181

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildWestDude View Post
simple, because the OP chose not to
The OP doesn't own the definition of "safe". It's not my problem the original post wasn't worded correctly. It should read "cities with the least amount of murders/violent crime - where would you rather live?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2017, 07:20 PM
 
Location: First Hill, Seattle
5,468 posts, read 5,771,813 times
Reputation: 7181
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildWestDude View Post
what part of safest cities on list don't you understand?
What part of the post I quoted didn't you understand?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2017, 10:40 PM
 
Location: City of North Las Vegas, NV
11,215 posts, read 7,604,018 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
What part of the post I quoted didn't you understand?

guess we have a different definition of safe
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2017, 08:45 AM
 
77 posts, read 50,177 times
Reputation: 109
This is a good example of how statistics can give a skewed view of reality. Come to Fresno, drive around the central part of town, or better yet take the bus up and down Blackstone, and report how safe you feel. There are very many safe enclaves, but in general I felt much safer living in Chicago than Fresno.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 10:47 AM
 
133 posts, read 78,605 times
Reputation: 167
The stats are very affected by what is considered the city limits and city size. For example, Chicago is widely considered the murder capital... but its murder rate is about average for a large city (less than Philly, Miami DC, ATL etc and way lower than places like Detroit and Baltimore) and the the city limits are larger than places like SF or San Jose, which distorts the numbers by excluding nearby areas (like Oakland.)

For example, Oakland is about 5 miles from SF. While Chicago's 2 dangerous/depressed areas are 5 miles west of Downtown and 5-10 miles south of downtown. You exclude those areas (make them a different city) and Chicago still has 1.5M people and a murder rate in line with so called "safe" cities NY, SF and LA.

I live in downtown Chicago (Streeterville), and the CBD population is 250K. About 500k people live in the extended downtown (CBD + Lincoln Park + Logan Sqr + Near West Side). This area of about 30 sqm has had <5 homicides so far this year while the city as a whole has had 262 (5 months.)

So IMO there are two equally valid take aways:
1. Chicago as a whole has a major and systemic problem with violence in its economically depressed areas that needs to be urgently addressed.
2. The 55M people who visit Chicago every year are as "safe" as those visiting other major cities like NY, LA, SF in that (for better or worse) they are insulated and 5-10 miles away from there areas that are affected by poverty and violence.

Cities with huge, dense downtowns like NY, Toronto, Chicago, London, Paris, Chicago (and SF if you extended its boundaries out 5 miles) are different from cities with small downtowns because there generally is a much larger geographical buffer between areas of high and low crime. This does not make the crime any less of a societal issue, but it does help in terms of personal safety- you can walk for miles in these cities through vibrant and relatively safe urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 11:40 AM
 
2,782 posts, read 1,465,656 times
Reputation: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkz4 View Post
The stats are very affected by what is considered the city limits and city size. For example, Chicago is widely considered the murder capital... but its murder rate is about average for a large city (less than Philly, Miami DC, ATL etc and way lower than places like Detroit and Baltimore) and the the city limits are larger than places like SF or San Jose, which distorts the numbers by excluding nearby areas (like Oakland.)

For example, Oakland is about 5 miles from SF. While Chicago's 2 dangerous/depressed areas are 5 miles west of Downtown and 5-10 miles south of downtown. You exclude those areas (make them a different city) and Chicago still has 1.5M people and a murder rate in line with so called "safe" cities NY, SF and LA.

I live in downtown Chicago (Streeterville), and the CBD population is 250K. About 500k people live in the extended downtown (CBD + Lincoln Park + Logan Sqr + Near West Side). This area of about 30 sqm has had <5 homicides so far this year while the city as a whole has had 262 (5 months.)

So IMO there are two equally valid take aways:
1. Chicago as a whole has a major and systemic problem with violence in its economically depressed areas that needs to be urgently addressed.
2. The 55M people who visit Chicago every year are as "safe" as those visiting other major cities like NY, LA, SF in that (for better or worse) they are insulated and 5-10 miles away from there areas that are affected by poverty and violence.

Cities with huge, dense downtowns like NY, Toronto, Chicago, London, Paris, Chicago (and SF if you extended its boundaries out 5 miles) are different from cities with small downtowns because there generally is a much larger geographical buffer between areas of high and low crime. This does not make the crime any less of a societal issue, but it does help in terms of personal safety- you can walk for miles in these cities through vibrant and relatively safe urban areas.
Chicago is a disgrace: very high crime rates in Southside, Westside and other areas of the city. Even downtown is very sketchy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 02:53 PM
 
115 posts, read 48,699 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy92832 View Post
I was just looking at the crime stats of all the cities with a population of over 500K. I figured out the safest and the most unsafe of those cities.

Lets start out with the most safe...

Safest Big Cities
1. San Jose
2. El Paso
3. San Diego
4. Los Angeles
5. New York
6. Austin
7. Fresno
8. Portland
9. Louisville
10. Charlotte

Most Unsafe Big Cities
1. Detroit
2. Memphis
3. Baltimore
4. Milwaukee
5. Indianapolis
6. Washington DC
7. Houston
8. Philadelphia
9. San Francisco
10. Nashville

Now, my question to all of you is...out of those 10 cities on the safest big cities list, what one would you want to live in the most?

The criteria would be...

- Amenities
- Climate
- Economy
- Education
- Health Care
- Housing
- Social and Civic
- Transportation

Washington, DC? Philadelphia? Houston? San Francisco? Nashville?

Who gives these people internet access?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,221 posts, read 5,573,508 times
Reputation: 3800
Quote:
Originally Posted by the topper View Post
Even downtown is very sketchy.
You don't like Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 03:39 PM
 
133 posts, read 78,605 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by the topper View Post
Chicago is a disgrace: very high crime rates in Southside, Westside and other areas of the city. Even downtown is very sketchy.
You are right that the high crime areas are disgraceful. A reflection of major national problems.

But your second assertion is incorrect, whether you go by crime data or experience. Some of the densest office building areas of the Loop are a bit empty on the weekends (as one would expect) but hardly "sketchy", and you can walk 3 miles north, south or west of the Hancock Center without being in any area that is "sketchy" (or head east to the beach areas.) The violent crime rate in any of these areas are as low as any other major city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2017, 03:46 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,991 posts, read 7,914,878 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis View Post
You don't like Chicago?
He/she doesn't like the Midwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top