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 don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Please understand - places that most of the people that live within the city limits of Phoenix would not be considered within St. Louis' city limits.
Let me give you a real life example based on my personal experience.
I moved to Charlotte from Cincinnati.
On paper, Cincinnati looks MUCH more dangerous than Charlotte. But I know that is not the case, because of what makes up the city limits.
Cincinnati is an older city, much like St. Louis. They have a very small land mass area that is actually considered within the city limits. The surrounding areas, the suburbs, are their own municipality - their own city. They are not included into these numbers. They report as their own municipality.
However, Charlotte is a newer city, much like Phoenix, and they have a much more aggressive annexation policy. Those surrounding suburban areas do not stand alone, they have been annexed and are now within the expanding Charlotte city limit. Therefore Charlotte has a much higher population than Cincinnati, despite the fact that Cincinnati region is much more densly populated than the Charlotte region. If you went and traced the Charlotte city limits and placed them around the Cincinnati city core, not only would the population numbers be similar, but so would the crime rates.
For instance, where I live in Charlotte, is a very safe suburb with high population and practically zero crime. I am 12 miles from center city - yet still considered within Charlotte city limits. Back home in Cincinnati, the ring for city limits is only a few miles. Twelve miles out of the city would not be within city limits - it would be an entirely different city/town and therefore would not be reported with city crime or total population.
My point, many newer cities have higher populations and lower crime rates because they have more land mass that is considered theirs.
It's really simple. Newer developing cities learned that the larger you can expand your city limits - the more middle to high income households will be paying city taxes.
A perfect example - on paper places like Charlotte, Phoenix, Jacksonville and Nashville are all bigger than Boston - we know that's not true.
True, but in my opinion NYC does not represent real-world city. Don't get me wrong it's a world class city, but it's not a true reflection of what most of our cities really are. Much of the city is made up of high rent districts that most Americans can not afford. Most cities in our country are just the opposite - they are comprised of large areas containing many individuals that can not afford to get out.
It's a different population make-up.
Check this out (New York City Homicides Map - The New York Times). It's a multi-media map from the New York Times with a breakdown of the city's murders going back 7 years. You can filter by year, time of day, sex of the victim, even murder weapon.
It's fascinating. And yes, certain neighborhoods are far more dangerous than others, but it's still amazing that the rates are so low. There are large, very posh, low crime areas, but the city also has literally millions of people in dangerous neighborhoods, far more than in the upscale parts of town. In terms of area and population, Manhattan/Brownstone Brooklyn is a comparatively small part of the city.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Please understand - places that most of the people that live within the city limits of Phoenix would not be considered within St. Louis' city limits.
Let me give you a real life example based on my personal experience.
I moved to Charlotte from Cincinnati.
On paper, Cincinnati looks MUCH more dangerous than Charlotte. But I know that is not the case, because of what makes up the city limits.
Cincinnati is an older city, much like St. Louis. They have a very small land mass area that is actually considered within the city limits. The surrounding areas, the suburbs, are their own municipality - their own city. They are not included into these numbers. They report as their own municipality.
However, Charlotte is a newer city, much like Phoenix, and they have a much more aggressive annexation policy. Those surrounding suburban areas do not stand alone, they have been annexed and are now within the expanding Charlotte city limit. Therefore Charlotte has a much higher population than Cincinnati, despite the fact that Cincinnati region is much more densly populated than the Charlotte region. If you went and traced the Charlotte city limits and placed them around the Cincinnati city core, not only would the population numbers be similar, but so would the crime rates.
For instance, where I live in Charlotte, is a very safe suburb with high population and practically zero crime. I am 12 miles from center city - yet still considered within Charlotte city limits. Back home in Cincinnati, the ring for city limits is only a few miles. Twelve miles out of the city would not be within city limits - it would be an entirely different city/town and therefore would not be reported with city crime or total population.
My point, many newer cities have higher populations and lower crime rates because they have more land mass that is considered theirs.
It's really simple. Newer developing cities learned that the larger you can expand your city limits - the more middle to high income households will be paying city taxes.
A perfect example - on paper places like Charlotte, Phoenix, Jacksonville and Nashville are all bigger than Boston - we know that's not true.
I have to disagree with your point- because if a city of 50 sq. miles had 100 murders, and a city of 300 sq. miles had 100 murders, then the rates for the smaller city will be higher indeed- but the number of murders is still the same. I see your point about the St. Louis having a higher rate because its so much smaller in land size than Phoenix, but the numbers of murders are still the same. And the Phoenix numbers only include the city proper, not the many surrounding suburbs, so even though the city is annexed to be so much bigger, a person is St. Louis is much more likely to be a victim. This is nothing against St. Louis, i'm just trying to understand your logic.
So if Phoenix is like 3x biggers in size than St. Louis, but still had the same number of murders, it can be infered that its a safer city right?
The degree to which you are likely to be a homicide victim always depends more on what part of a city that you are in than it does on which city you are in. All cities have both very dangerous areas and very safe areas. Some cities just have more of the former and less of the latter. Some cities, such as Miami and New Orleans, also have millions of visitors per year who are out on the streets (and who are sometimes a victim of a crime and sometimes commit crimes), while many other cities do not. This also skews per capita homicide rates and the probability of an individual actually being a victim of a homicide in a given city.
I have to disagree with your point- because if a city of 50 sq. miles had 100 murders, and a city of 300 sq. miles had 100 murders, then the rates for the smaller city will be higher indeed- but the number of murders is still the same. I see your point about the St. Louis having a higher rate because its so much smaller in land size than Phoenix, but the numbers of murders are still the same. And the Phoenix numbers only include the city proper, not the many surrounding suburbs, so even though the city is annexed to be so much bigger, a person is St. Louis is much more likely to be a victim. This is nothing against St. Louis, i'm just trying to understand your logic.
So if Phoenix is like 3x biggers in size than St. Louis, but still had the same number of murders, it can be infered that its a safer city right?
Actually, QCP's logic does make sense. If you were to take every large city center and draw a 50 mile radius around it, many of the murder rates that we see would change drastically and be more on par with each other. Most murders in any city occur relatively close to the city core.
But when you expand that city limit circumference, the way many newer cities have, you end up adding heavily populated, low crime areas to the city proper itself. Because of this city population numbers become somewhat saturated and crime rates diluted.
And yes, Phoenix is 3x larger than St.Louis, but that's because they DO include MANY suburban areas into their city proper. St. Louis does not.
I'd be willing to say if St. Louis engulfed more surrounding land, the way Phoenix has, then it's total murder numbers would change very little and their rate would drop drastically.
On paper, Cincinnati looks MUCH more dangerous than Charlotte. But I know that is not the case, because of what makes up the city limits.
Cincinnati is an older city, much like St. Louis. They have a very small land mass area that is actually considered within the city limits. The surrounding areas, the suburbs, are their own municipality - their own city. They are not included into these numbers. They report as their own municipality.
However, Charlotte is a newer city, much like Phoenix, and they have a much more aggressive annexation policy. Those surrounding suburban areas do not stand alone, they have been annexed and are now within the expanding Charlotte city limit. Therefore Charlotte has a much higher population than Cincinnati, despite the fact that Cincinnati region is much more densly populated than the Charlotte region. If you went and traced the Charlotte city limits and placed them around the Cincinnati city core, not only would the population numbers be similar, but so would the crime rates.
For instance, where I live in Charlotte, is a very safe suburb with high population and practically zero crime. I am 12 miles from center city - yet still considered within Charlotte city limits. Back home in Cincinnati, the ring for city limits is only a few miles. Twelve miles out of the city would not be within city limits - it would be an entirely different city/town and therefore would not be reported with city crime or total population.
My point, many newer cities have higher populations and lower crime rates because they have more land mass that is considered theirs.
So...let me get this straight...you are placing Charlotte (280 sq mi) in the same category with Phoenix (517 sq mi)? Charlotte and Cincinatti (80 sq mi) are much closer in area than Charlotte and Phoenix.
The physical size of a city IS NOT any reason to cite as an excuse for the difference in safety...Detroit (143 sq mi) Baltimore (92 sq mi) Philadelphia (135 sq mi) Milwaukee (97 sq mi) Columbus (212 sq mi) New Orleans (350 sq mi) Memphis (313 sq mi) etc. etc. etc. - all "older" cities covering larger areas than Cincinatti that STILL have very high murder rates per 100,000 residents. Explain that?
Actually, QCP's logic does make sense. If you were to take every large city center and draw a 50 mile radius around it, many of the murder rates that we see would change drastically and be more on par with each other. Most murders in any city occur relatively close to the city core.
But when you expand that city limit circumference, the way many newer cities have, you end up adding heavily populated, low crime areas to the city proper itself. Because of this city population numbers become somewhat saturated and crime rates diluted.
And yes, Phoenix is 3x larger than St.Louis, but that's because they DO include MANY suburban areas into their city proper. St. Louis does not.
I'd be willing to say if St. Louis engulfed more surrounding land, the way Phoenix has, then it's total murder numbers would change very little and their rate would drop drastically.
I would love to see some statistics that show most murders occuring near cities' cores. I know for a fact that isn't true for Atlanta...Downtown is one of the least likely areas for murder - and I'm pretty sure that's true for lots and lots of cities.
The size of the city of St. Louis is not representative of MOST large cities...older or newer or whatever age they may be. The majority of the more populated cities are larger than 66 sq mi.
Nice to see Tampa not on that list. But Im sure DJ will try to find a murder list for Tampa so he can bash it like he did Orlando.
Well, of course, but according to that same page DJ linked, the murder spree looks like it is over. Notice how it says 31 murders in 2009 in Orange county? It's almost July now. That puts Orlando on course to slash 2008's murder numbers in half. Unless there are some pretty wild killing sprees, 2009 should look a lot better than 2008...returning to what they were for most of the years prior to 06.
I would love to see some statistics that show most murders occuring near cities' cores. I know for a fact that isn't true for Atlanta...Downtown is one of the least likely areas for murder - and I'm pretty sure that's true for lots and lots of cities.
The size of the city of St. Louis is not representative of MOST large cities...older or newer or whatever age they may be. The majority of the more populated cities are larger than 66 sq mi.
When did I say most crime occurs downtown? You even bolded what I said. Last time I checked relatively close to city core does not represent downtown.
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.
