Which are the most dangerous neighborhoods in the United States? (Atlanta, size)

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by polo89

I agree, that's what I meant, becaues those neighborhoods are so LARGE theres gonna be ALOT more murders as compared to a smaller neighborhood. It's inevitable. Neighborhoods like Harlem which have around 100,000 people, of course THAT neighborhoods is gonna have a higher crime rate. Like New Orleans for example, imagine if neighborhoods like the ones in NO had the same population as Brownsville or Harlem, they're murder rates would be EXTREMLY higher then what it is now, and the murder rate in neighborhoods in NO are already off the charts. If the city of NO was as big as NYC or CHI or LA, NO would probably have somewhere around 2,950 MAYBE even 3,000 murders in one year. It may sound crazy and hard to believe but it maybe true. NYC had I believe 492 muders last year with a population of 8million people, NO had 207 murders last year(nearly half) but it's population is only a miniscule 200,000. THAT's crazy. But dont get me wrong I aint saying SOuth Bronx is safe, because i've heard plenty of stories, I wouldnt walk in there acting hard.

New Orleans Crime rate would go down if it had the population of A Chicago ,LA or NYC IF New Orleans city limits spread out and they annexed the suburbs in the metro NEW Orleans crime rate would go down . New Orleans is mostly ghetto . Imagine if the southside of Chicago became its own city . How dangerous would it be ? Here is a post i did in a thread from like a year ago read it and maybe you will understand what im talking about.

Originally Posted by 9TheCityOfAngeles9

Crime rates are very much affected by the population differences / social status & gender. Anytime you use per-capita means per 100,000 . If you measure per-capita for a city thats pop. is 500,000 (100,000 x 5) vs a city of 4 million (100,000 x 40) obviously you will get different results and the city with the higher population will have a "safer status" because of the opportunity that a city of that magnitude has . Raw numbers always give better direct detail when you measure a big city in the United States . Stats are a way of generally stereo typing people and are used to give cities , states & ethnicity's good or bad reputations instead of just telling it the way it is . Compton borders Los Angeles but it is considered much more dangerous by stats but it is neighbored by districts such as Watts which are located in the city of Los Angeles that are just as bad if not worse then Compton . Just as the City of Beverly Hills is synonymous with wealth and is looked and often considered (by people that dont live here of course) the richest area in LA metro . it as not as exclusive or wealthy as Holmby Hills or the Bel-Air sections of LA , But is often considered that based on the overall median income vs the city of Los Angeles' median income .

Comparison: Beverly Hills has a higher median income then LA but
Select Neighborhoods/Districts in LA has higher median income than Beverly Hills . Q: How is that possible ? A: Because of population differences .

A couple of years ago a neighborhood in LA, Boyle Heights a section East Los Angeles was the most dangerous neighborhood of the United States quoted by dateline . "More people die in that concentrated area then any other area of that size in the United States of America" , But Boyle Heights doesnt have any effect on other areas such as Westwood or Tarzana, which are also districts of Los Angeles proper but worlds away from the terror . What does any of this prove ? It proves that crime stats are not as useful for a city this big and raw numbers are a better choice for a city of 4 million


Comparison: St Louis is the most dangerous city statistically .
Select Neighborhoods/Districts in Los Angeles have the highest concentration of murders and in the US . Q: How is that possible when LA's murder and crime rate are lower than St Louis or any of the dangerous other cities ? A: Because of population differences .

[rah]

I can't find violent crime stats for separate San Francisco neighborhoods, but here are the hoods with the highest murder totals/rates, as of 2007 (populations aren't all exact either, but pretty close. It's hard to find most neighborhood stats):

-Hunters Point/Bayview (30,000) - 22 (73.3/100k)
-Visitacion Valley (16,000) - 11 (68.8/100k)
-The tenderloin (20,000) - 12 (60/100k)
-the Western Addition (including the Fillmore, Lower Haight, Alamo Square, Panhandle, Hayes Valley) (40,000) - 12 (45/100k)
-Lakeview/Ingleside (15,000) - 6 (40/100k)
-The Mission District (60,000) - 15 (25.5/100k)
-South of Market (35,000) - 6 (17.1/100k)
-Potrero hill (18,000) - 2 (11.1/100k)
-the Excelsior/Mission Terrace (50,000) - 4 (8/100k)

and as of 2008:

-Hunters Point/Bayview (30,000) - 18 (60/100k)
-The Tenderloin (20,000) - 9 (45/100k)
-Visitacion Valley (16,000) - 7 (43.8/100k)
-The Mission District (60,000) - 21 (35/100k)
-South of Market (35,000) - 10 (28.6/100k)
-Potrero Hill (18,000) - 5 (27.8/100k))
-Western Addition (including the Fillmore, Lower Haight, Alamo Square, -Panhandle, Hayes Valley) (40,000) - 10 (25/100k)
-the Excelsior/Mission Terrace (50,000) - 8 (16/100k)
-Lakeview/Ingleside (15,000) - 2 (13.3/100k)

90 murders occurred in those neighborhoods in both 2007 and 2008, which have a combined population of 284,000 people, and a combined murder rate of 31.7/100k residents.

Those hoods are all connected to each other too...San Francisco's high crime areas all string together along SF's southern and eastern sides, starting with Lakeview, the Excelsior and Visitacion Valley as the southern end, and snaking it's way up to the Tenderloin and Western Addition for it's northern end. So that part of the city, with a population of around 300,000, has a murder rate of around 30 per 100k. Then the rest of the city, with a population of 500,000 people, is much more wealthy and safe, and only has a murder rate of around 2/100k.

[polo89]

Originally Posted by 9TheCityOfAngeles9

New Orleans Crime rate would go down if it had the population of A Chicago ,LA or NYC IF New Orleans city limits spread out and they annexed the suburbs in the metro NEW Orleans crime rate would go down . New Orleans is mostly ghetto . Imagine if the southside of Chicago became its own city . How dangerous would it be ? Here is a post i did in a thread from like a year ago read it and maybe you will understand what im talking about.

New Olreans isnt that spread out. New Orleans is pretty dense, and MOST of New Orleans homicides are limmited to certain areas, like 3rd ward, 4th ward 5th ward, and certain other housing projects, trust me New Orleans murder rate would be higher then those cities, because neighborhoods would become MORE overcrowded, it's already starting to happen now, neighborhoods murder rates are going up because peopleare moving to them from other neighborhoods pre-katrina, once again Boyle Heights is a neighborhood of 86,000 which is pretty big. What im saying is NO would be just as high if not higher, more people equals more murders, that's why Houstons murder rate went up after Katrina residents started to move to the city. People also forget that Katrina sort of lowered New Orleans murders, before Katrina New Orleans was on it's way to 300+ homicides for 2005 that would've been on LA and Detroits level, a city of only 400,000 at that time on it's way to 300+ murders, that's bad even for a raw numbers standpoint not even for a per capita standpoint. And once again New Orleans murders dont happen in far flung suburbs across the city, they happen in the select bad neighborhoods, and wards. In LA you have east LA, South Central, in NYC you have 5 LARGE boroughs spread across five large islands, In Chicago you have the southside, and the westside, in NO you only have a few select wards, if NO were as big as those cities then it's murders would not only be limited to those areas but they would spread to the far flung areas of the city much like NYC, Chi, and LA, thus having just as many if not more murders then those cities.
2005 murders
LA:489
NYC: 539
CHI:446
NO: On pace to 300+
Remeber the deep southsde of CHI has 700,000 people, which is larger then the whole city of NO by 500,000 people, and NO has a just as high if not higher number of murders, if the south side were it's own city it WOULD be up there, but NO would still be higher because the city of NO's population would still be waaaay smaller, and NO would have just as much if not more mureders in terms of RAW numbers then the southside of Chicago, imagine if the 3rd ward of NO were it's own city. South Central has a population of 500,000 also larger then NO, and NO has a higher number of murders, Brooklyn a borough of NYC which has a population of 2.5million people is waaaay larger then NO, and NO averages more RAW number(not even per capita) murders a year then Brooklyn, in 2000 Brooklyn had a little more then NO. NO had 204, and Kings County NY had 207. More people eaquals more muders, no matter how spread out a city is, and I believe if NO was as large as those afformentioned cities it would mean higher neighborhood populations, higher city populations, higher number of murders. Notice how NO's number of murders went down after Katrina, and notice how Houstons went up, notice how when people started to move back to NO and repopulate the city, it's murders went up. More people More murders.

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by polo89

New Olreans isnt that spread out. New Orleans is pretty dense, and MOST of New Orleans homicides are limmited to certain areas, like 3rd ward, 4th ward 5th ward, and certain other housing projects, trust me New Orleans murder rate would be higher then those cities, because neighborhoods would become MORE overcrowded, it's already starting to happen now, neighborhoods murder rates are going up because peopleare moving to them from other neighborhoods pre-katrina, once again Boyle Heights is a neighborhood of 86,000 which is pretty big. What im saying is NO would be just as high if not higher, more people equals more murders, that's why Houstons murder rate went up after Katrina residents started to move to the city. People also forget that Katrina sort of lowered New Orleans murders, before Katrina New Orleans was on it's way to 300+ homicides for 2005 that would've been on LA and Detroits level, a city of only 400,000 at that time on it's way to 300+ murders, that's bad even for a raw numbers standpoint not even for a per capita standpoint. And once again New Orleans murders dont happen in far flung suburbs across the city, they happen in the select bad neighborhoods, and wards. In LA you have east LA, South Central, in NYC you have 5 LARGE boroughs spread across five large islands, In Chicago you have the southside, and the westside, in NO you only have a few select wards, if NO were as big as those cities then it's murders would not only be limited to those areas but they would spread to the far flung areas of the city much like NYC, Chi, and LA, thus having just as many if not more murders then those cities.
2005 murders
LA:489
NYC: 539
CHI:446
NO: On pace to 300+
Remeber the deep southsde of CHI has 700,000 people, which is larger then the whole city of NO by 500,000 people, and NO has a just as high if not higher number of murders, if the south side were it's own city it WOULD be up there, but NO would still be higher because the city of NO's population would still be waaaay smaller, and NO would have just as much if not more mureders in terms of RAW numbers then the southside of Chicago, imagine if the 3rd ward of NO were it's own city. South Central has a population of 500,000 also larger then NO, and NO has a higher number of murders, Brooklyn a borough of NYC which has a population of 2.5million people is waaaay larger then NO, and NO averages more RAW number(not even per capita) murders a year then Brooklyn, in 2000 Brooklyn had a little more then NO. NO had 204, and Kings County NY had 207. More people eaquals more muders, no matter how spread out a city is, and I believe if NO was as large as those afformentioned cities it would mean higher neighborhood populations, higher city populations, higher number of murders. Notice how NO's number of murders went down after Katrina, and notice how Houstons went up, notice how when people started to move back to NO and repopulate the city, it's murders went up. More people More murders.

What you dont understand is more people = More money the city gets , more future police . New Orleans is not disneyland but in the same respect New Orleans is no harder than any other city . Yes New Orleans residents made the murder rate rise in several southern cities . Houston , Dallas , Atlanta , There was an amount of NO residents that went to Chicago , New York & Los Angeles as well and the New Orleans residents that went to the 3 big cities could not really lift a finger . Places like Houston , Dallas & Atlanta are semi-open markets as far as crime . Places like Los Angeles and Chicago aren't people really dont go to those cities and take over . I remember when Katrina victims got shipped out to California maybe one or two tried the same thing they did in Houston but got sent back to New Orleans casualties . When Compton was ranked the murder capital it would have had 5300 murders if it had the population of New York but we almost never compare it like that because no way in the world would it get like that . New Orleans is a poor city if it had 1 million plus people living within the city limits it wouldnt be the New Orleans you know . Just like if Compton had 8 million people do you think it would have 5300 murders ? No

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by 9TheCityOfAngeles9

What you dont understand is more people = More money the city gets , more future police . New Orleans is not disneyland but in the same respect New Orleans is no harder than any other city . Yes New Orleans residents made the murder rate rise in several southern cities . Houston , Dallas , Atlanta , There was an amount of NO residents that went to Chicago , New York & Los Angeles as well and the New Orleans residents that went to the 3 big cities could not really lift a finger . Places like Houston , Dallas & Atlanta are semi-open markets as far as crime . Places like Los Angeles and Chicago aren't people really dont go to those cities and take over . I remember when Katrina victims got shipped out to California maybe one or two tried the same thing they did in Houston but got sent back to New Orleans casualties . When Compton was ranked the murder capital it would have had 5300 murders if it had the population of New York but we almost never compare it like that because no way in the world would it get like that . New Orleans is a poor city if it had 1 million plus people living within the city limits it wouldnt be the New Orleans you know . Just like if Compton had 8 million people do you think it would have 5300 murders ? No

Houston had about 200k evacuees, you can't compare that with the people who went to those other cities. They didn't take over nothing; It was the fact we had convicts from NO on the loose running through the streets commiting crimes, as well as Houston residents. All they did was just add fuel to the fire.

[Crotonapark]

Originally Posted by SuperMario

This is wrong.

You're equating total crime with crime rate. Most people go by crime rate and little cities ALWAYS do better than large cities.

Tell me why large cities like NYC, LA, and CHI only got to around 33 homicides per 100,000? And yet smaller cities like New Orleans, Miami, Detroit, DC all have reached 90+.

Lets take The Bronx for example in 1990. The murder rate for the entire borough (2,000,000 pop) was maybe 50 per 100,000. Yet single neighborhoods like Hunts Point (40,000 pop), Mott Haven (60,000), Morrisania (50,000) all had murder rates of 100+ per 100,000.

When you have so much people, the stats are bound to be skewed by good areas. NYC in 2009 has a lot of dangerous places. But since it's such a large city, there are many GOOD neighborhoods that affect the overall crime rate and make it lower.

New Orleans doesn't have this option. It's small, so the WHOLE city is practically a hood.

Crime rates are ALWAYS in favor of small populations.

Very good points SuperMario!

Also, NYC (South Bronx) is a lot denser than most the other cities on the list and so the murders will seem closer to a resident because more people live on the same block than they would in a place with houses and what not!

Also! NYC is a CITY. Compton is a CITY. NYC has about 8000000 people and CPT about 100000 people and Compton is pretty high up on the list of most dangerous cities in America, but if the South Bronx was a CITY, I think it would easily make that list!

Plus: In 1988 there were 3000 (or 2000 I cant remember) murders in NYC and there was one million people less living there then than now! Thats more than 8/5 murders a day!

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by crotonapark

very good points supermario!

Also, nyc (south bronx) is a lot denser than most the other cities on the list and so the murders will seem closer to a resident because more people live on the same block than they would in a place with houses and what not!

Also! Nyc is a city. Compton is a city. Nyc has about 8000000 people and cpt about 100000 people and compton is pretty high up on the list of most dangerous cities in america, but if the south bronx was a city, i think it would easily make that list!

Plus: in 1988 there were 3000 (or 2000 i cant remember) murders in nyc and there was one million people less living there then than now! thats more than 8/5 murders a day!

2200

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 9TheCityOfAngeles9

2200

My adopted hometown of Sao Paulo had over 5,000 homicides one year. I hear the rate has gone way down though.

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

My adopted hometown of Sao Paulo had over 5,000 homicides one year. I hear the rate has gone way down though.

well i think thats considered The City of God Sao Paulo is worse then our worst ghetto

[FinnishAmerican]

Detroid and East st.louis get a tie.

(Ps. COmpton aint bad, come on down' to WALK =))