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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-14-2017, 08:32 PM
 
18 posts, read 10,200 times
Reputation: 20

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
It isn't called variation. Just because Philadelphia varies from really dangerous hoods to tons of really safe areas means the entire philly area is safer than Springfield. Same with Baltimore. The city proper might be crime filled but the area 70% of the metro lives is mostly nice suburban neighborhoods.
So is this about city, or about metro area? Two very different things with two different connotations.


For instance, Detroit is a dumpster that should be paved over and rebuilt, it's incredibly dangerous, but the suburbs of Detroit are awesome, and for the most part people from those suburbs don't go into Detroit at all unless they like football. Just because a city has nice suburbs (most cities have some nice suburbs) doesn't take away from the irredeemable dodginess of the city. Actually, having good suburbs may make a city worse off because when those suburbs start to get restaurants and employment, you spare the suburbanites from ever having to go "into town."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-14-2017, 09:57 PM
 
115 posts, read 48,699 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
It isn't called variation. Just because Philadelphia varies from really dangerous hoods to tons of really safe areas means the entire philly area is safer than Springfield. Same with Baltimore. The city proper might be crime filled but the area 70% of the metro lives is mostly nice suburban neighborhoods.

It's not even crime filled in the city proper though. Like any other city, it's concentrated and isolated to certain areas of the North and West side.

Why do some cities benefit from image and some don't? I flat out don't understand the favoritism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2017, 09:58 PM
 
115 posts, read 48,699 times
Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyg2014 View Post
That's still more homicides than Springfield has so far this year and Springfield is much larger. Camden even had as many homicides as Boston did last year.

And it could just be a quiet start to the year. Camden had 25 homicides in 2001, 49 in 2004, 34 in 2009, 67 in 2012, 44 last year, etc. It's by no means a trend based on 5 months of data. Camden has traditionally fluctuated. Camden will still probably finish the year with more homicides than Springfield has had any year this century.
We get it. New England is the bastion of smart white wealthy racist people. Be more like that. Got it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Tupelo, Ms
667 posts, read 419,568 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarbanzoBeans View Post
It's not even crime filled in the city proper though. Like any other city, it's concentrated and isolated to certain areas of the North and West side.

Why do some cities benefit from image and some don't? I flat out don't understand the favoritism.
The most down to earth question/statement said on here in awhile. The infrastructure is the same nationwide, therefore from the most populated metros to the smaller cities....it's the same speaking crime wise! All that horrible incidents is in these neighborhoods. Not the entire city.

Last edited by Sharif662; 06-15-2017 at 12:19 AM.. Reason: Misspelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 06:55 AM
 
1,227 posts, read 897,413 times
Reputation: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
It isn't called variation. Just because Philadelphia varies from really dangerous hoods to tons of really safe areas means the entire philly area is safer than Springfield. Same with Baltimore. The city proper might be crime filled but the area 70% of the metro lives is mostly nice suburban neighborhoods.
It's the same for Springfield. 70% of the Springfield MSA are low crime municipalities. Only Springfield and Holyoke are a little sketchy overall, and both combined are 200k people in a metro of 700k, which leaves 70% of the metro area left which is very safe and livable.

Philly, Camden, Chester and Wilmington combined are 1.7 million in a metro of 6 million, which leaves 70%, for literally an exact percentage of the metro area as Springfield/Holyoke are to the Springfield MSA.

Camden has more homicides than Springfield so far this year. Even Chester (26k people) has twice as many homicides as Springfield (150k people).

I've never bought into crime rates besides homicide. There's differences in classification, reporting by both residents and police, and corruption. Springfield doesn't have anywhere near the tension between neighborhood and police that cities like Philadelphia, Chicago or Baltimore have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Center City, Philadelphia
4,559 posts, read 2,518,803 times
Reputation: 2857
It must really MAss people the wrong way.

Here, we can play the Twitter game.



The city of Springfield MAss had a higher robbery and rape rate than the city of Philadelphia last year. Truth hurts sometimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 07:13 AM
 
1,227 posts, read 897,413 times
Reputation: 921
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate View Post
It must really MAss people the wrong way.

Here, we can play the Twitter game.



The city of Springfield MAss had a higher robbery and rape rate than the city of Philadelphia last year. Truth hurts sometimes.
That's true, Philly's murder rate has improved since 2012 (despite it upticking lately). It's still higher than Springfield. And Chester with 34k people still has twice as many homicides as Springfield and its 154k people.

Unlike homicide, which produces a body in the street, too many factors skew crime stats. I do believe there is also pressure from local governments to look good, especially in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago that have the crime spotlight on them constantly.

Last edited by joeyg2014; 06-15-2017 at 07:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 08:21 AM
 
Location: The Springs
1,765 posts, read 1,977,700 times
Reputation: 1821
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
I have friends who live in Aurora and it looks like a pretty middle class area. Not the nicest city but definitely doesn't look dangerous.
Agree. I lived in Aurora in the 70s-80s (Kingsborough Area, my first house) around Chambers & Mississippi. We were as far east as the Denver Metro went at that time. Back then, most of the crime was in the Del Mar area and north of 6th. The city has grown so much, don't know if that's still the case?

Living in the Springs, it is certainly no better than Aurora. Pueblo is CO's gang central, but they've only had 1 homicide this year. Even with the population differential, COS is at 16.

Last edited by Kar54; 06-15-2017 at 08:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,222 posts, read 5,575,414 times
Reputation: 3800
Springfield Missouri is no surprise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,260 posts, read 20,865,688 times
Reputation: 9950
I found the article kind of misleading. It shows that Salt Lake City is the most violent city in Utah and the numbers for violent crimes were frighteningly high. The only thing is that the entire Salt Lake City metro area was included. Two out of every three residents of Utah lives in the Salt Lake City metro area. Salt Lake City itself is actually very small, with a population of only about 180,000 people. The small cities around it account for the remaining total "metro area" of 1.2 million people. The population of the entire state is only 3 million. Of the other "cities" that comprise the Salt Lake City metro area, which is supposedly a hotbed of crime, most are extremely safe. You have Holladay, Cottonwood Heights, Sandy, Draper, South Jordan, Bountiful, Millcreek, etc. which are wonderful places to live. Then you have West Valley City, a city of 134,000 people, which borders Salt Lake City on the west. It's the second most populous city in Utah and is high in crime. You couldn't pay me enough to live there. To include all of the cities in the Salt Lake metro area and call it "Salt Lake City" simply doesn't paint an accurate picture of "the City."
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