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.
I'm not sure how many times we have to go through this same information over, and over again. With the exception of 2016 and 2017, Chicago has not been in the top 10 for homicide rate in the US among cities of 250K+ population for a long time. 2016 was a massive spike for Chicago way up from the years prior. The years of 2013 and 2014 had the lowest homicides in the city since 1965.
Here are the rankings via the FBI UCR for each year going back a ways in terms of murder rate ranking for Chicago for cities of 250K+ populations:
2018 of course hasn't been released yet from the FBI, but it's probably going to be ranked around 11th or 12th.
There are several ways to look at this. First of all, a few years back is probably a valid point of reference for a lot of people so compared to the bad years 2016/2017 Chicago actually has improved a lot relatively since then. I was comparing to the Cabrini Green era when shooting in the sky just for fun was a common practice. Chicago has improved even much more since that time.
Second, some cities with very bad areas may have (annexed) low crime areas which skews the crime statistics in comparison with cities where the good parts happen to be outside of the city border. So, it's better to compare metro areas than cities. Chicago and LA are some of the cities where there are very bad parts and good parts which compensate for the bad parts in the crime statistics.
Then there is perception. As long as around 50 people get shot and around 15 killed each year during the 4th of July weekend, Chicago will always be considered a high crime city. There is no excuse for this violence. To me it will always be a very high crime city regardless of other cities looking worse statistically.
My list is only cities of 250K+ population as of the 2017 ACS. The exclusions are those which I don't have a reliable source of data for or don't fall in the population minimum requirement. Richmond is not on my list because it doesn't have a population of at least 250,000 people.
Pretty simple. If Richmond was 250K+ population I would include it. I include Aurora and Santa Ana because they each have over 250K+ people. Santa Ana has more people than St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Newark, Orlando, Buffalo, etc. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about my list other than some cities not having a super reliable source of information.
Whoa there, Mr. Defensive!
It is arbitrary because that is your marker; my marker is something else. Its arbitrary because there is nothing that states that you have to only include cities above 250k...
Regardless, when did you post and say you were only doing cities above 250k? You're getting defensive about your intent that clearly wasn't clear, as another poster questioned it as well...
You really get outta sorts around here sometimes. I can see the steam coming from your ears, it's okay to take s deep breath! Lol...
It is arbitrary because that is your marker; my marker is something else. Its arbitrary because there is nothing that states that you have to only include cities above 250k...
The 250K+ marker is based on a study I had seen awhile ago which also used it as the baseline. i'd have to dig that up though. I'll include next time that it's only 250K+ cities and those in there which have a reliable source of data or someone on here seems to know what's up with it (i.e. Charlotte).
I wasn't upset by the way. It's only data - I'd have no problem including a list of cities of say 150K - 250K population either as those are interesting too but separated. I'm just explaining that it's really not too arbitrary. Asking why Santa Ana is on here when it has a higher population than the likes of Pittsburgh, St. Louis, etc is a bit weird to me regardless of whether it's a "suburb" or not (ask Inglewood or Compton about that back in the day especially).
For the record, and I'm sure some of us have seen this but the FBI actually cautions against crime rankings
For the record, and I'm sure some of us have seen this but the FBI actually cautions against crime rankings
I've seen this and for people predisposed to judgement I think it's great advice. For myself, and I think you as well, I already know that crime rankings aren't the best indicator of city health and that crime in general is nuanced, so when you study it, you have to be able to compartmentalize!
How come no Florida cities on the list? (edit: I just noticed Jacksonville is on there but no Miami, Orlando, Tampa?)
Interestingly, how did Anchorage sneaked its way near the top without getting much attention?
Florida's cities are zoned pretty poorly. Most of the worst areas of Orlando, for instance, fall into "unincorporated Orange County," including Pine Hills.
Central Florida is sitting at 55 homicides.
If you want to count just the "official" counties of the Orlando MSA (Lake, Seminole, Orange, Osceola) you have 37.
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.
