What do you think is really the most dangerous top ten cities? (crime rates, neighborhood)

[CTownNative]

Originally Posted by Colts

You didn't. My bad.

Its cool.I will say now in this post that Cleveland was probably more important in the '50s and '60s,now through,its definetly Indy.I think Indy's metro is about to pass Cleveland's in population,if not it already has.I drove by Indy before,looks like a pretty cool city.I like just about any city in the Midwest.

[CTownNative]

Originally Posted by Colts

Something like 500,000, don't have the numbers at hand but definitely nothing to sneeze at.

500,000 is definetly not a small city,actually isn't Indy creeping up around 800,000?I know the metro is around 2,000,000 people now.

[TerrySRA]

Detroit
New Orleans
Miami
San Jose
St Louis
Kansas City
Salt Lake City

[BSL63087]

Salt Lake City? Isn't it like 200,000 people?

There are a lot more dangerous places I'm sure. I'd say SLC has it's fair share of big city problems but it's definitly not top 10 worst.

[rah]

Originally Posted by TerrySRA

Detroit
New Orleans
Miami
San Jose
St Louis
Kansas City
Salt Lake City

San Jose, Salt Lake City, and even Miami, shouldn't be on that list...

[brewtown12]

big cities=Memphis,Detroit,Cleveland,Milwaukee,Washing ton D.C,Philly,Atlanta,Chicago
Dallas

Mid-smaller sized cities=St.Louis,Kansas city Missouri,Flint,Gary,Compton,Camden,New Orleans,Richmond Virginia,Newark,Oakland

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Colts

First of all what are you talking about? I like Louisville and I never said it was a bad city.

There are places in the USA FAR worse than St. Louis, like East St. Louis for example. I just think that as a city, it is in pretty bad shape comparatively speaking. And, it has a mediocre downtown.

I find it ironic that you chastize Indy's for concentrating its most important assets downtown (which is what cities do, anyway) and yet it blows St. Louis's downtown away any day of the week. You and I both know this, so why argue about it? St. Louis has better concentrated neighborhoods and Indy has the better core. I doubt you've even been to Indy since you always brag about passing it up on the way to a "better" city.

You say that all cities are ultimately the same? BS if I've ever heard it. How many times have you confessed your hate for places like Indy, while at the same time keeping St. Louis on this pedestal above most other American cities because of its uniqueness (hard decline, "cool" neighborhoods, architecture, etc). You contradict yourself so many times it isn't even funny.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be surprised or care if people have a negative opinion of St. Louis given the state the city is in, and use it as an excuse to badmouth another city or as a crutch to get people to feel sorry for St. Louis or Cleveland or Detroit or any other dying industrial city. All you should care about is what makes St. Louis a great town in your opinion.

And personally I could give a damn if you (or any other city geek) likes Fort Wayne. I could give a damn if you like Indy or not either. The general population seems to like it, the numbers don't lie and that's all that counts in the end.

Actually, I have been to Indy about five or seven times. As far as I'm concerned, I actually am not sure if Downtown Indy really blows away Downtown St. Louis at all or not as far as office buildings are concerned. There is just as much if not more to do in St. Louis City as Indy. It's not a bigger downtown, that much I can say for certain. I don't care if you like St. Louis or not, I'm just saying you can't put dismiss a city like St. Louis as a horrible city..period. Its metro area is bigger than Indy's by roughly a million people, it's got a lot more going on in its whole metro than Indy does in its city or metro combined....it is simply in my opinion a better city. My only problem is you saying St. Louis is a horrible city in every way, shape, and form...could not be further from the truth...nor is it any worse of a city than Indy. Indy has some things St. Louis doesn't, St. Louis has some things Indy doesn't. It's that simple. If you think St. Louis is such a horrible city...tell that to the 2.8 million people living in its metro area. I understand St. Louis has its weaknesses, but it has far more good qualities to it than bad qualities, as does almost any city for that matter. If St. Louis were the sh*thole you said it is, it would not exist. Think before you point down a city, because like it or not your city is not perfect either. And what is so special about Indy's downtown? It's pretty mediocre to me as well if that's your definition of mediocre...it didn't blow me away at all, anymore than St. Louis, in fact it blew me away less...the only downtowns that aren't mediocre as far as I'm concerned are Chicago, Detroit, the Twin Cities, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, New York, etc. Your opinion of St. Louis is simply your opinion. It's not the correct one, that much I can state for certain. You're not qualified to judge St. Louis anymore than I am to judge Indy, so let's just cut the crap.

It really bothers me when somebody like you just comes forward and calls a city downright "horrible." Believe it or not, every American city IMO has something unique that makes it great, and if your words were true, 2.8 million people would not be living here. Indy is not superior to St. Louis or Cleveland, nor IMO is it any better of a city. I'm just tired of argueing. We will just have to agree to disagree. Chicago is superior to all three of these cities, so that ends this debate here and now.

[brewtown12]

Rampant,persistant drug trafficking.Filthy,trash littered streets.Boarded up,abandoned houses/buildings.Drug addicts and prostitutes roaming around.Police sirens and gunshots in the background.Cars blaring loud music passing on a regular basis.Residents majorty black or latino.Welcome to ghetto America.


The truth is areas like this exist in every city,certain cities have diffrent demographics (a city that is 80% whites will obviously have a much lower poverty,and thus crime rate,than a city that is 80% black/latino).

[CTownNative]

Originally Posted by brewtown12

Rampant,persistant drug trafficking.Filthy,trash littered streets.Boarded up,abandoned houses/buildings.Drug addicts and prostitutes roaming around.Police sirens and gunshots in the background.Cars blaring loud music passing on a regular basis.Residents majorty black or latino.Welcome to ghetto America.


The truth is areas like this exist in every city,certain cities have diffrent demographics (a city that is 80% whites will obviously have a much lower poverty,and thus crime rate,than a city that is 80% black/latino).

Cars blaring loud music is not just associated with blacks and latinos.Im a white person,and play rap music very loud at my house.

[Colts]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Actually, I have been to Indy about five or seven times. As far as I'm concerned, I actually am not sure if Downtown Indy really blows away Downtown St. Louis at all or not as far as office buildings are concerned. There is just as much if not more to do in St. Louis City as Indy. It's not a bigger downtown, that much I can say for certain. I don't care if you like St. Louis or not, I'm just saying you can't put dismiss a city like St. Louis as a horrible city..period. Its metro area is bigger than Indy's by roughly a million people, it's got a lot more going on in its whole metro than Indy does in its city or metro combined....it is simply in my opinion a better city. My only problem is you saying St. Louis is a horrible city in every way, shape, and form...could not be further from the truth...nor is it any worse of a city than Indy. Indy has some things St. Louis doesn't, St. Louis has some things Indy doesn't. It's that simple. If you think St. Louis is such a horrible city...tell that to the 2.8 million people living in its metro area. I understand St. Louis has its weaknesses, but it has far more good qualities to it than bad qualities, as does almost any city for that matter. If St. Louis were the sh*thole you said it is, it would not exist. Think before you point down a city, because like it or not your city is not perfect either. And what is so special about Indy's downtown? It's pretty mediocre to me as well if that's your definition of mediocre...it didn't blow me away at all, anymore than St. Louis, in fact it blew me away less...the only downtowns that aren't mediocre as far as I'm concerned are Chicago, Detroit, the Twin Cities, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, New York, etc. Your opinion of St. Louis is simply your opinion. It's not the correct one, that much I can state for certain. You're not qualified to judge St. Louis anymore than I am to judge Indy, so let's just cut the crap.

It really bothers me when somebody like you just comes forward and calls a city downright "horrible." Believe it or not, every American city IMO has something unique that makes it great, and if your words were true, 2.8 million people would not be living here. Indy is not superior to St. Louis or Cleveland, nor IMO is it any better of a city. I'm just tired of argueing. We will just have to agree to disagree. Chicago is superior to all three of these cities, so that ends this debate here and now.

Lol. Looks like someone went out of his way to write a thoughtful and insightful post. Too bad you missed the point by a mile.

Let me reiterate this again for you. I DO NOT care how you feel about Indy--I could care less if you thought Indy was the worst city on earth. Wanna know why? Because you are entitled to your own opinion.

Interesting how you brag about those 2.8 mil in St. Louis's metro. But where do those 2.5 mil live? THE SUBURBS. Is St. Louis's metro even growing at all?
I wouldn't be surprised in St. Louis dropped under 300,000 for the next Census. Detroit might be down at 500,000 or something sad like that themselves.

I also don't get how you say that there is just so much more to do in St. Louis than Indy. There isn't and you and I both know that.

You still maintain that St. Louis has a better downtown than Indy? Right. Any idiot can smell that bs from a mile away. What next, Detroit has safer neighborhoods than Denver?

And I never said that Indy was great. There are some things that I hate about Indy and my own town of Ft. Wayne. But here's the difference between me and you--I acknowledge my cities' problems and will be the first one to admit them and criticize them. Seems you would rather sweep things under the rug instead of looking at the situation for what it is.

Now maybe I've exaggerated things a bit by saying St Louis is flat out horrible, but there's no denying that as a city it is still not in that great of shape. I just don't have any sympathy for dying cities, I'm sorry. When a city has lost over half of its population in a period of 40 years (read Detroit and Cleveland) and suffers from the decay and violence issues that these cities do they CANNOT be that great of places to live. I'm not convinced.