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.
How does having a larger population base skew per capita numbers?
huge swaths of suburban areas with no/few murders make the city seem safer.
If Pittsburgh Annexed some surrounding towns then the murder rate would go down but the old city limits would not become any safer.
huge swaths of suburban areas with no/few murders make the city seem safer.
If Pittsburgh Annexed some surrounding towns then the murder rate would go down but the old city limits would not become any safer.
That makes no sense. The homicide per capita of a city has nothing to do with land mass.
I went on a summer afternoon several years back to see the Royals and eat at Arthur Bryants. I ate at Arthur Bryant, and it was probably the most underwhelming, overpriced BBQ I ever ate. I had the local radio on and there was a bomb threat downtown and a killing in one of the Royals' parking lots. I never had any desire to go back.
I agree with the comments about Indy being stale/generic. There is a lot of big box development and vinyl villages, and little interesting architecture or scenery in and around the metro. In spite of its size and outside sports and conventions, there is little to nothing interesting about the place.
One also needs to remember that while the city limits of Indianapolis are large, the city/county limits were made coterminus (Unigov) years ago and many areas that are in the "city limits" are suburban or even quasi-rural. In the linked image below, virtually everything around I-74 is rural - it's mostly cornfields from the border to the 465 line. The east side of the I-70 is basically all SFH vinyl villages and doesn't feel like part of the city at all. Same for the area around the airport - the airport is way out of the way and there is little to nothing out there. I think you could easily lop off everything outside 465 (other than Castleton) and still have less of an urban feel than many other cities. If you take truly urban Indianapolis, the crime numbers would be a lot higher - I'd say they are diluted quite a bit by the tame areas on the edges of the county.
I went on a summer afternoon several years back to see the Royals and eat at Arthur Bryants. I ate at Arthur Bryant, and it was probably the most underwhelming, overpriced BBQ I ever ate. I had the local radio on and there was a bomb threat downtown and a killing in one of the Royals' parking lots. I never had any desire to go back.
Interesting perspective. I actually liked Arthur Bryant's. They gave me too many pieces of bread, though. There's plenty of other BBQ in Kansas City anyway, so if you don't like one place, you still have options. I also enjoyed the time I spent in Kansas City. It sounds to me like you were there on a bad day. Bomb threats and sports-related violence aren't normal.
That makes no sense. The homicide per capita of a city has nothing to do with land mass.
Some cities have larger city limits than others which can dilute the stats.
If you base it off metro area for 2014, Pittsburgh's rate was 5.4/100k, KC's was 6.6/100k and Indy's was 7.9/100k. All three of them increased in 2015 too.
So as a metro area, Indy is the worst. The city just has huge boundaries that dilute the city's stats.
Some cities have larger city limits than others which can dilute the stats.
If you base it off metro area for 2014, Pittsburgh's rate was 5.4/100k, KC's was 6.6/100k and Indy's was 7.9/100k. All three of them increased in 2015 too.
So as a metro area, Indy is the worst. The city just has huge boundaries that dilute the city's stats.
Some cities have larger city limits than others which can dilute the stats.
If you base it off metro area for 2014, Pittsburgh's rate was 5.4/100k, KC's was 6.6/100k and Indy's was 7.9/100k. All three of them increased in 2015 too.
So as a metro area, Indy is the worst. The city just has huge boundaries that dilute the city's stats.
I have apps for WSMV in Nashville and WFLA in Tampa and there doesn't appear to be anywhere near the amount of violence in those places as in Indianapolis. If you are looking into Indy as a relocation spot, and follow the local media, these crime stats will scare the hell out of you.
I can't give my take since I have never been to any of these cities. But if I had to choose which ones I would live in, probably a toss up between Kansas City and Pittsburgh, with Indianapolis a distant third. It interests me the least.
Indianapolis and Kansas City moved the goalposts themselves, the moment they both annexed large swathes of suburban and rural land after World War II. Pittsburgh never had that luxury. It's why Indianapolis covers 365 square miles, and Kansas City covers 319 square miles, but Pittsburgh only covers 55 square miles.
That's what I thought too, forgetting the actual city proper populations. It's still bad though.
Yeah I guess a better way to say it would be that my perception is skewed, mostly because I more or less ignore city limits and tend to categorize the size of what I think of as "cities" by the urbanized areas not the city proper numbers.
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.
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.
