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.
and IF being the key word, but its not and won't be. Keep making up scenarios and excuses if you want but it doesn't change facts or statistics.
I know that this has already been partially said by other posters, but thinking in abstractions and hypothetical scenarios is one of the keys to critical thinking. Of course this doesn't change the facts about crime rates, but the point was that the city of Los Angeles is over 10 times the size of Boston geographically, and that if Boston was a similar size, it would have a significantly lower crime rate than Los Angeles.
However, it is important to take into consideration that Los Angeles has millions more people than Boston does.
I know that this has already been partially said by other posters, but thinking in abstractions and hypothetical scenarios is one of the keys to critical thinking. Of course this doesn't change the facts about crime rates, but the point was that the city of Los Angeles is over 10 times the size of Boston geographically, and that if Boston was a similar size, it would have a significantly lower crime rate than Los Angeles.
However, it is important to take into consideration that Los Angeles has millions more people than Boston does.
That's not necessarily a fair comparison either b/c then Boston would compromise a much higher portion of the entire metro's population than LA would with theirs.
IMO has more to do with homers who like to fudge facts and stats around to make their city look good yet don't do it with other cities. Take New Orleans, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or any city then expand its borders to include more suburbs and their crime rates will fall too. I really don't consider that critically thinking when its somewhat obvious.
That's not necessarily a fair comparison either b/c then Boston would compromise a much higher portion of the entire metro's population than LA would with theirs.
IMO has more to do with homers who like to fudge facts and stats around to make their city look good yet don't do it with other cities. Take New Orleans, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or any city then expand its borders to include more suburbs and their crime rates will fall too. I really don't consider that critically thinking when its somewhat obvious.
I'm not sure about this. What do you mean Boston would compromise a much high portion of the metropolitan area than would Los Angeles?
Just looking at some facts on Wikipedia, the city of Los Angeles has around a quarter to a third of the population of the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area (the MSA is almost 13,000,000; the city is almost 4,000,000). The metropolitan area is 4,850 square miles. The city is almost 500 square miles.
For Boston, the city has only about a seventh to an eighth of the population of the entire Boston metropolitan area (the MSA is about 4,500,000; the city is around 600,000). The metropolitan area is similar in size to that of Los Angeles, at 4,674 square miles. The city of Boston is only 90 square miles, 40 of which is water.
This means that the city of Los Angeles encompasses much more of a percentage of its MSA both geographically and population-wise than Boston does despite the fact that the MSA's are of similar size geographically.
68 percent of people would rather live in suburbia, a small town or a rural area than a city but you'd never know it from the urban-centered biased national news media.
Just divide it a different way. 80% of people live in a metropolitan area with over 1 million people. Ask those people if they would like to live in a place where they are geographically isolated (a farmstead, a town of 2,500, a mountain cabin) and a majority would say no. Just because you have a suburban mindset doesn't mean that you have more in common with a rural person than an urban person.
That statistic also implies that 32% of people prefer to live in the core of an urban area. Nowhere near 100 million people live in the core cities of metropolitan areas.
I'm not sure about this. What do you mean Boston would compromise a much high portion of the metropolitan area than would Los Angeles?
Just looking at some facts on Wikipedia, the city of Los Angeles has around a quarter to a third of the population of the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area (the MSA is almost 13,000,000; the city is almost 4,000,000). The metropolitan area is 4,850 square miles. The city is almost 500 square miles.
For Boston, the city has only about a seventh to an eighth of the population of the entire Boston metropolitan area (the MSA is about 4,500,000; the city is around 600,000). The metropolitan area is similar in size to that of Los Angeles, at 4,674 square miles. The city of Boston is only 90 square miles, 40 of which is water.
This means that the city of Los Angeles encompasses much more of a percentage of its MSA both geographically and population-wise than Boston does despite the fact that the MSA's are of similar size geographically.
I was mainly thinking in terms of population. I'm not even sure what exactly all of LA's metro boundaries include, I suspect it may include a lot of uninhabited land in the mountains and desert that can't be developed. I was just thinking along the lines of making Boston's population the same size as LA's, which would have it comprise most of the metro areas population kind of like how San Antonio and Jacksonville are.
I was mainly thinking in terms of population. I'm not even sure what exactly all of LA's metro boundaries include, I suspect it may include a lot of uninhabited land in the mountains and desert that can't be developed. I was just thinking along the lines of making Boston's population the same size as LA's, which would have it comprise most of the metro areas population kind of like how San Antonio and Jacksonville are.
Its nice that the opinions run the gamut of the popular and not so popular places and everywhere has passionate defenders... and critics. Some of these are difficult choices even for me who studies this stuff so a couple of years ago I decided to live summers in one place and the rest of the year somewhere different. The "rest of the year " place is Rockport TX and I've talked about it enough.
Among my summer favorites still in the running:
El Paso ( desert- mountains and friends-just a friendly town in general),
Buffalo (nice old buildings and less traffic than any other major city except for Corpus Christi-high taxes though),
The river towns south of Pittsburgh (cheap old buildings quiet areas)
Colorado ( Denver too much traffic but the mountains are great but still expensive)
Detroit a long shot ( horrible taxes and crime but nice buildings for $1 a sq ft)
Lorain Oh - ( nice buildings - on the lake -somewhat depressed economy)
That's not necessarily a fair comparison either b/c then Boston would compromise a much higher portion of the entire metro's population than LA would with theirs.
IMO has more to do with homers who like to fudge facts and stats around to make their city look good yet don't do it with other cities. Take New Orleans, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or any city then expand its borders to include more suburbs and their crime rates will fall too. I really don't consider that critically thinking when its somewhat obvious.
Obvious to you.
You'd be surprised how many people will look at a city's crime rate and extrapolate that to the surrounding urban area -- regardless of the fact that some of the most dangerous cities in the country also have some of the safest suburbs in the country. It just depends on how some people interpret data, and I definitely think the point about high violent crime rates in a small, urban core not necessarily being reflected in a surrounding urban area is a point that's worth repeating.
Well dude you may be right but there may also be a good reason for it. People who live in suburbs often go to the city each day for work and maybe shopping and entertainment. One may sleep at night in safe place but they might be exposed to high crime for work and play.
Criminals looking to steal or rob are not deterred by a small sign that might say "leaving city limits". Reporting systems aren't perfect and the conviction may be written up where the criminal lives.
Here's the best example more for being funny true story, than real evidence. A man goes downtown Detroit to the police station "I want to report a murder". The understaffed police dept just has him sit forever and so he gets on a bus and goes to Toledo and reports it there - and at least at first the Toledo PD processes the case.
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.
