[JayCT]

Originally Posted by ctcoldplay11

JayCT- What it seems that you are saying is that Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport are all more dangerous areas to live in than cities like NYC, Philly or Boston because you are more likely to be a victim of a crime due to the small city size, etc. If the former cities were more spread out or larger in population, this wouldn't be an issue?

But back to the question, I truly feel that Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford are much more dangerous than the larger cities of the Northeast. Just my opinion!

No, actually I am saying just the opposite. Cities like New York and Phillidelphia cover large areas and include a lot of more middle and upper class areas than a small city like Hartford does. These large cities were formed by annexing adjacent communities and bringing in other areas that are comparable to West Hartford, Wethersfield or Windsor. If those towns were included in the statistics, the crime rate for Hartford would be lower. Overall Hartford is as safe as most other large cities in this country. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

No, actually I am saying just the opposite. Cities like New York and Phillidelphia cover large areas and include a lot of more middle and upper class areas than a small city like Hartford does. These large cities were formed by annexing adjacent communities and bringing in other areas that are comparable to West Hartford, Wethersfield or Windsor. If those towns were included in the statistics, the crime rate for Hartford would be lower. Overall Hartford is as safe as most other large cities in this country. Jay

I disagree, especially now more than ever.

Yes, it has much smaller city limits but it is what it is. Just because it's smaller and less spread out doesn't make Hartford proper any safer.

[CT by choice]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

I disagree, especially now more than ever.

Yes, it has much smaller city limits but it is what it is. Just because it's smaller and less spread out doesn't make Hartford proper any safer.

I think JayCT's point is that it also doesn't make Hartford proper any more dangerous than other cities whose stats are skewed by including outlying safer areas that CT cities do not include. The core areas of both urban areas are similarly safe or unsafe but are measured differently thus appearing different statistically.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by CT by choice

I think JayCT's point is that it also doesn't make Hartford proper any more dangerous than other cities whose stats are skewed by including outlying safer areas that CT cities do not include. The core areas of both urban areas are similarly safe or unsafe but are measured differently thus appearing different statistically.

Thanks for clarifying.

I know that other cities have areas with higher crime than Hartford's worst parts - but Hartford is small, and crime is more concentrated within those small city limits. In larger cities (NYC, LA, Boston, Philly, DC), there are safer parts to reside within those larger city limits, further away from crime-ridden neighborhoods. In Hartford, the worst parts can be right around the corner from your "safe neighborhood." I guess we can just agree to disagree.

[ctcoldplay11]

kidyankee-

I completely agree with you, I feel that Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport seem more dangerous because they are small and the crime is concentrated in those small areas, whereas you mentioned for example the larger cities have safer parts for residents to live. All in all, I find Hartford and Bridgeport to be much worse than New Haven.

[uconn99]

In Hartford, the worst parts can be right around the corner from your "safe neighborhood." I guess we can just agree to disagree.

You people need to come to Phoenix.

There are multi million dollar houses here less than 2 miles from pure ghetto where gun shots are heard on a nightly basis.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by uconn99

There are multi million dollar houses here less than 2 miles from pure ghetto where gun shots are heard on a nightly basis.

How is Connecticut any different? The same can be said for Trumbull and Fairfield to Bridgeport, and Greenwich to Stamford, and Darien/Rowayton to neighborhoods in Norwalk.

But my point is that in Hartford (and most other CT cities) the safe areas are a lot closer than 2 miles to the seedy areas.

Don't get me wrong, Hartford isn't a bad place to live. You just have to have general street smarts.

[newyork2050]

I understand what your saying about why the per 100,000 stats being so high but if you look at the overall number of crimes most the time they are higher or just as high as other cities double the size

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by newyork2050

I understand what your saying about why the per 100,000 stats being so high but if you look at the overall number of crimes most the time they are higher or just as high as other cities double the size

These cities have few middle-class people. Upper middle class and wealthy are virtually non-existant in these cities. These cities basically consist of poor and working poor persons. For the most part, when someone living in one of these cities reaches "middle-class" status, they flee for the suburbs. If these individuals would stay instead of fleeing, the cities would gain stability in their crime stats. You can't put a gun to their head to force them to stay, though.

[glxyman21]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The poster asked about crime stats for these cities and how they compare to other cities, as quoted in my post. In other cities some of the suburban areas where there is less crime are part of the city. That is not the case in Connecticut cities. Connecticut cities are small and have most of the problem areas in the metropolitian area. They also have less suburban areas to offset the problem areas. This gives the impression statistically that a city like Hartford has more crime than other cities with similar metropolitian populations. Jay

Adding in the suburbs will not affect the crime statistics as the number of crimes committed can be higher regardless. It would be inappropriate to add the suburbs because :

A. they are not part of the city now and
B. they may have developed differently if they were.

Now, this doesn't take away the fact that Hartford's crime rate is proportionatly higher than other cities. Lets compare Hartford to say, Boston. Not Boston metro, as this has over 4.5 million people, but Boston proper. Granted, Boston has a larger footprint than Hartford at 89 square miles, but half of that is water, which leaves a liveable land area compareable to many towns.

Hartford's population in 2006 was 124,203 while Boston's was 562,393. That makes Boston's population 4.5 times greater than that of Hartford's - this will be a key number later on.

Now on to the crime statistics (based on the 2006 FBI Crime Stats).

Hartford

Murder: 24
Forcible Rape: 47
Robbery: 758
Aggravated Assault: 761
Burglary: 1158
Larceny Theft: 5957
Vehicle Theft: 1709

Boston

Murder: 75
Forcible Rape: 275
Robbery: 2698
Aggravated Assault: 4485
Burglary: 4121
Larceny Theft: 16897
Vehicle Theft: 4076

Next, on to a little mathematics. We will take that 4.5 number and multiply it by Hartford's crime rates to bring it into parity with Boston's population for comparison.

Hartford

Murder: 24 x 4.5 = 108
Forcible Rape: 47 x 4.5 = 211.5
Robbery: 758 x 4.5 = 3411
Aggravated Assault: 761 x 4.5 = 3424.5
Burglary: 1158 x 4.5 = 5211
Larceny Theft: 5957 x 4.5 = 26806.5
Vehicle Theft: 1709 x 4.5 = 7690.5

By the calculations, we can see that Hartford's crime rates are not in proportion to that of Boston's and are greater in all areas except for forcible rape and aggravated assault. Also, since Hartford has a small footprint crime is very much concentrated throughout the city and is very close to all areas as there can be no divide of "good and bad". I hope this answers the OP's original question of comparing cities to cities.