Ohio cities homicide rates (Cleveland, East Cleveland: roughest, purchase, schools)

[ctownplayer]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

Sorry, Cle, but you won't win this one. Cleveland has some bad areas but if you've ever spent any time in Austin, North Lawndale, Englewood, Garfield Park, Back of the Yards - I think you'd pretty much give up your argument. I've spent most of my growing up years in the Akron-Cleveland area and as an urban photographer and have spent plenty of time in East Cleveland and some of ''our'' more depressed neighborhoods and I never got the same feelings I did while in some of Chicago's down-trodden neighborhoods. Chicago isn't really a city you can compare in the same way as Cleveland based on its size, but what you can do is measure the dangerous neighborhoods with dangerous neighborhoods, and hands down, Cleveland's worse isn't as bad as Chicago's worse. This also says nothing of how improved the areas around Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor are now since being (mostly) torn down. There was nothing comparable to those two housing projects in their hay-day - absolutely nothing.

i am sorry, but you can't say that one "hood" is harder than another. there are areas in cleveland that are just as bad as ANY area in chi-town and vise-versa.

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by ctownplayer

i am sorry, but you can't say that one "hood" is harder than another. there are areas in cleveland that are just as bad as ANY area in chi-town and vise-versa.

Actually, like I said, neighborhood by neighborhood comparisons are one of the easiest ways to define how more or less dangerous a part of a city is. It's far more logical and accurate than Cle's idea that Cleveland, as a whole, is more dangerous, than Chicago, which is such a vague, and unreasonable claim. Your comment proves to me, just like Cle440's comments proved to me, that neither of you have spent significant time in ANY of Chicago's worst neighborhoods.

I hate when people act like they're special enough to know about a place - either by living somewhere or visiting alot - so I won't talk about experience on my own part, but what I will say is simply to go there, brother. If you think reading the Plain Dealer is depressing, pick up a couple of Chicago newspapers and keep up with the crime blotter.

Cleveland, as bad as it is, and it certainly has some bad neighborhoods - really, almost third-world, it's worst areas (79th and Kinsman and surrounding, for example) isn't as dangerous an area as areas within North Lawndale, Austin, Englewood, or West Garfield Park, nor are Cleveland schools, although bad, are as depressingly bad.

Read a very old book for yourself: Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools, which documents one of the worst schools in the country location in North Lawndale. My fiancee and I participated in a program in the Cleveland Public High Schools called 3R's (Rights, Responsibilities, and Realities) which assisted students in passing certain sections of their exams so I'm not ignorant of Cleveland's public school issues either.

I'm actually still in shock at your comment that you can't tell if one area is worse than another. Have you never been to say, Kent, Ohio and taken note of its areas and then visited say, East St. Louis, Illinois and were unable to say that one was worse than another? Truly, you just simply haven't gone to the places that I am discussing.

Moreover, Chicago, in the form of Robert Taylor and Cabrini-Green, was the site of an unprecedent government project that Cleveland has nothing comparable to. When these two projects still stood - one near the Gold Coast and one in South Side, they, alone, were one of the most dangerous set of neighborhoods in the entire country. The project was such a disaster that nearly all of them have been destroyed and replaced with mixed-income housing similar to what Cleveland has done on its near east side. But before, none of it was comparable. The size, destitution, and crime which ravaged these communities were absolutely unprecedented.

The reality is that Cleveland is a smaller city with less areas with as much value as there are in Chicago proper. There are many, many neighborhoods in Chicago proper that rich, young business people desire to live in and many more that middle class folks desire to live in due to their relative safety -- Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Near North Side, Lakeview, Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, etc, etc, etc. Cleveland proper, on the other hand, has far less areas for upper classes to live. Where do you live if you make 100k+? Typically, not in Cleveland. What's left is alot of middle class neighborhoods, a few upper class neighborhoods, and alot of down-trodden areas, making Cleveland, on the whole, rank as a very poor, high-crime city. But to connect that fact with the idea that its worst neighborhoods with Chicago's is a prime example for not understanding how to properly apply statistics.

[BelieveInCleve]

Youre saying that Chicagos worst areas are worse than Clevelands worst areas and that somehow makes Chicago more dangerous as a whole?. Now were also talking about currently, youre bringing up Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini Green which are almost entirely razed by now and those areas have improved greatly so that has nothing to do with now. That book you brought up is from 1991. On top of that Cleveland would be as bad or worse than Chicago at any point in history, just as Cleveland was the murder capital in the 70s with 333 murders in one year at a rate of 49/per 100k (higher than Detroit today).

You bring up the crime blotter, which again has to do with raw numbers so that has little value being that Cleveland is less than 1/6th the size of Chicago. Cleveland municipal school district is one of the top 2 worst big city school districts in the country, Chicago school district is doing very bad but is not near that level. Out of all the large cities in Ohio, Cleveland has the lowest graduation rate by far at 53.7%, the next closest was Youngstown at 72.8%, nearly 20% higher ( http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009...ng_a_drop.html ). Again, Im not bashing Cleveland or trying to make Chicago seem nicer than it is, but this is just reality.

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by Cle440

Youre saying that Chicagos worst areas are worse than Clevelands worst areas and that somehow makes Chicago more dangerous as a whole?

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I say it's completely irrational to say that EITHER city is more dangerous than the other. You cannot examine in that manner two cities which are so drastically different. The fact is the worst neighborhoods of Chicago are worse than the worst neighborhoods of Cleveland. It's really not even debatable. As I also pointed out, however, there are also nicer, far more available upper-class neighborhoods in Chicago proper than Cleveland proper. What does that mean as a whole? It doesn't mean, necessarily, that one city is more or less dangerous -- you really have to examine the two neighborhood by neighborhood, which was my point.

Originally Posted by Cle440

youre bringing up Robert Taylor Homes and Cabrini Green which are almost entirely razed by now and those areas have improved greatly so that has nothing to do with now.

Improved greatly? Cabrini-Green still hasn't been completely demolished and it was in an area surrounded by other projects as well, which still remain. I think it's safe to say it's safer for police officers to go there -- CG was essentially a barrack where thugs could target others behind total cover. Improved greatly might be a relative term, and it has certainly improved around Cabrini-Green in the sense that police officers can now go there. cabrini green - Google Maps Here's a block where you can see a remaining project and empty lots where old buildings used to stand. They call those yards 'Killing Fields' because there's no protection from gunfire. Almost amusingly, the name of that street is North Cleveland.

Robert Taylor, on the other hand, was smack dab in the middle of Englewood and what they call Back of the Yards - a very seedy stretch of neighborhoods I'd honestly want no part of -- then or now.

Originally Posted by Cle440

That book you brought up is from 1991.

I suppose I should have prefaced that, but I am aware of this. Don't read it because I'm offering it to possibly prove a point -- but in seeing your posts over the months, I think as a person you'll really find the book interesting. I highly reccommend. Most of it is in regards to E. STL.

Originally Posted by Cle440

Chicago school district is doing very bad but is not near that level.

You make a good point about Cleveland schools and I think we're not far apart in our thinking, but what needs to be remembered about a city like Chicago and a city like Cleveland is this: There are two Chicago's and One Cleveland. Chicago can be seen as fragmented, like most big cities, as a rich and a poor Chicago. Chicago's public schools, in say, North Lawndale is far different than Chicago's public schools in say, Lincoln Park. Cleveland, in my opinion, is far less fragmented. Overall, it's more down-trodden in more areas, relative to its size. Like I said, most people with money choose not to live in Cleveland, but rather in its nicer suburbs. It's not rewarded with the higher property taxation seen in much nicer neighborhoods or with the better public school statistics that a lot of other cities can take advantage of.

[ctownplayer]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

Actually, like I said, neighborhood by neighborhood comparisons are one of the easiest ways to define how more or less dangerous a part of a city is. It's far more logical and accurate than Cle's idea that Cleveland, as a whole, is more dangerous, than Chicago, which is such a vague, and unreasonable claim. Your comment proves to me, just like Cle440's comments proved to me, that neither of you have spent significant time in ANY of Chicago's worst neighborhoods.

I hate when people act like they're special enough to know about a place - either by living somewhere or visiting alot - so I won't talk about experience on my own part, but what I will say is simply to go there, brother. If you think reading the Plain Dealer is depressing, pick up a couple of Chicago newspapers and keep up with the crime blotter.

Cleveland, as bad as it is, and it certainly has some bad neighborhoods - really, almost third-world, it's worst areas (79th and Kinsman and surrounding, for example) isn't as dangerous an area as areas within North Lawndale, Austin, Englewood, or West Garfield Park, nor are Cleveland schools, although bad, are as depressingly bad.

Read a very old book for yourself: Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools, which documents one of the worst schools in the country location in North Lawndale. My fiancee and I participated in a program in the Cleveland Public High Schools called 3R's (Rights, Responsibilities, and Realities) which assisted students in passing certain sections of their exams so I'm not ignorant of Cleveland's public school issues either.

I'm actually still in shock at your comment that you can't tell if one area is worse than another. Have you never been to say, Kent, Ohio and taken note of its areas and then visited say, East St. Louis, Illinois and were unable to say that one was worse than another? Truly, you just simply haven't gone to the places that I am discussing.

Moreover, Chicago, in the form of Robert Taylor and Cabrini-Green, was the site of an unprecedent government project that Cleveland has nothing comparable to. When these two projects still stood - one near the Gold Coast and one in South Side, they, alone, were one of the most dangerous set of neighborhoods in the entire country. The project was such a disaster that nearly all of them have been destroyed and replaced with mixed-income housing similar to what Cleveland has done on its near east side. But before, none of it was comparable. The size, destitution, and crime which ravaged these communities were absolutely unprecedented.

The reality is that Cleveland is a smaller city with less areas with as much value as there are in Chicago proper. There are many, many neighborhoods in Chicago proper that rich, young business people desire to live in and many more that middle class folks desire to live in due to their relative safety -- Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Near North Side, Lakeview, Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, etc, etc, etc. Cleveland proper, on the other hand, has far less areas for upper classes to live. Where do you live if you make 100k+? Typically, not in Cleveland. What's left is alot of middle class neighborhoods, a few upper class neighborhoods, and alot of down-trodden areas, making Cleveland, on the whole, rank as a very poor, high-crime city. But to connect that fact with the idea that its worst neighborhoods with Chicago's is a prime example for not understanding how to properly apply statistics.

actually, if you took the time to read what i said, was that no "HOOD" is worse than another. chicago and cleveland both have BAD areas, so what is the key word in my statement? a poor, high crime ghetto is a poor, high crime ghetto no matter where it is. you seem to have this fallacy that you know everything about all the bad areas of chicago and cleveland. i don't know anything about chicago, i'll admit that, and i will not sit here and try to paint a facetious picture about an area i don't have any experience with.
you also stated that chi-town is more depressing than cleveland, have you actually ever been to east cleveland? you stated that you had worse feelings in chicago, that's probably because there are entire blocks that are completely abandoned in east cleveland, EC is kinda like a more concentrated version of east st. louis. i myself can speak from experience about eastside cleveland, north philly, and north hartford. i don't have alot of traveling experience around the states, but if my opinion if challenged i will defend it. actually living in a ghetto and being an urban photographer are two separate things. you must understand that statistics are definetely a good indicater of a bad area, but living there is a whole different animal.

[jam40jeff]

This whole discussion about one city being more dangerous than another is ridiculous. What does it mena for a single person? If I am going to downtown Cleveland, do I care how dangerous E. 79th and Kinsman is? If I live in Garden Valley Estates, do I care how safe Edgewater is? It makes more sense to compare neighborhoods, as that is what a person is going to experience in a large city. The same goes for Chicago.

Chicago has a lot of bad neighborhoods (especially on the South Side) which are as bad or worse than anything in Cleveland. What makes Chicago's overall crime rate lower is that they have more upper class neighborhoods within the city, where in Cleveland more of them tend to be outside the city limits (like Rocky River, Bratenahl, and Shaker Heights). What this matters to a person living in or visiting either of these cities, I don't know.

[WeSoHood]

Puddy4Lyf, you are comparing apples to oranges. Chicago had a much higher crime/homicide rate in the past. Now, compared to Cleveland - it's worse areas might be similar, but are certainly not more dangerous. The fact Cleveland had 140 some murders, mainly concentrated within a population of about 100,000, is incredible. St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are all the same.

And any talk about Cabrini Green is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't exist anymore. In the early 90s NYC had over 1,000 murders, does that make is more dangerous now? Nope.

And to say you are a photographer and 'know' the area's is completely false. There is a large difference from being a resident compared to a visitor.

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by WeSoHood

Puddy4Lyf, you are comparing apples to oranges. Chicago had a much higher crime/homicide rate in the past. Now, compared to Cleveland - it's worse areas might be similar, but are certainly not more dangerous. The fact Cleveland had 140 some murders, mainly concentrated within a population of about 100,000, is incredible. St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, etc are all the same.

And any talk about Cabrini Green is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't exist anymore. In the early 90s NYC had over 1,000 murders, does that make is more dangerous now? Nope.

And to say you are a photographer and 'know' the area's is completely false. There is a large difference from being a resident compared to a visitor.

I think you've missed the entire point of the posting, which was to say that you couldn't compare them because it WAS apples to oranges, but that what you could compare was neighborhood to neighborhood.

P.S. I used to live in Chicago, just west of Austin's western border.

P.P.S. I used to live in downtown Cleveland - Reserve Square.

I know what the hell it is I'm talking about, and I put it out pretty well in two postings. If anyone wants to actually attack the thesis with well-thought out and accurate statements, they can begin because as of now, it's just a waste of time reading some of these replies.

[ctownplayer]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

I think you've missed the entire point of the posting, which was to say that you couldn't compare them because it WAS apples to oranges, but that what you could compare was neighborhood to neighborhood.

P.S. I used to live in Chicago, just west of Austin's western border.

P.P.S. I used to live in downtown Cleveland - Reserve Square.

I know what the hell it is I'm talking about, and I put it out pretty well in two postings. If anyone wants to actually attack the thesis with well-thought out and accurate statements, they can begin because as of now, it's just a waste of time reading some of these replies.

FYI, downtown cleveland is not the rough part of cleveland. i prefer to use life experiences to get my point across, but that doesn't mean i know everything. i never said you did not know what you are talking about, all i trying to say is a rough ghetto is a rough ghetto and that rough side of cleveland and the rough side of chicago are two sides of the same coin. there is no reason to get defensive and assume that no one else knows what they are talking about just because they challenged your viewpoint. i am not trying to "attack your thesis", i am just trying to participate in a rather healthy discussion about ohio's homicide rates.

[BelieveInCleve]

West of Austins western border is not in the city of Chicago. I believe that would be Oak Park.

Downtown Cleveland is statistically the safest neighborhood in Cleveland.

Ive lived in Humboldt Park/Logan Square in the city of Chicago. Also East Chicago (neighborhood) for a short time.

I was born in Clark-Fulton/Stockyards in the city of Cleveland and spent time there growing up. Ive also lived in Hough/St. Clair-Superiour for a short time.

Maybe you dont know what it is that youre talking about.