U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2010, 04:30 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,407 posts, read 13,949,114 times
Reputation: 5571

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
You're wrong. You need to search a bit harder.

5 Highest Crime Cities 2009 (along with population density per square mile):
Camden, NJ 9,057
St. Louis, MO 5,724
Oakland, CA 7,209
Detroit, MI 6,571
Flint, MI 3,714
Average 6,455

5 Lowest Crime Cities 2009:
Colonie, NY 1,413
Amherst, NY 2,178
Mission Viejo, CA 5,375
Irvine, CA 1,184 - this is how many people are per sq km not sq mi.
Ramapo, NY 1,778
Average 2,386

Density of 5 cities with highest crime is 171% higher than that of the 5 cities with the lowest crime.
again, SOCIOECONOMICS plays a much bigger role in why those cities have higher crime rates. Also Mission Viejo has a higher density than Flint and nearly the same as St Louis yet has a far lower crime rate, your own list contradicts your whole argument.

And if you doubled the land area of those high crime cities the crime rate is still the SAME. If you double the density of those low crime cities the crime rate will be the SAME.

NEW YORK CITY is by far the densest city in America and it's has the lowest crime rate of any major American city.

Look at the crime rate of New Orleans and it's density.

I'm still waiting for list that differentiate crimes rates by density of the city. Show me that list if one actually exists?

Also answer this question that I already asked: If there are 5 murders per 100,000 residents how is your chance any higher of being murdered if that 100,000 is packed into 10 square miles versus 50 square miles?

^ can you actually answer this? Your chances of becoming a victim is not any higher in a denser city than it is in a less dense city if the crime rate is the same.

Again, you are the ONLY one making this argument. No one else is, that alone should tell you something right there.

Last edited by sav858; 01-15-2010 at 04:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2010, 04:55 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,407 posts, read 13,949,114 times
Reputation: 5571
Top 10 safest and most dangerous cities over 500K

City Crime Rankings by Population Group

Safest:
San Jose 2695 per sq mile
Honolulu 3540
El Paso 2447
NYC 27440
Austin 2558
San Diego 4175
San Antonio 2809
Louisville 1866
Fort Worth 1829
Jacksonville 1062

Top ten average density= 5042.1 per sq mile

Dangerous:
Detroit 6571 per sq mile
Baltimore 7889
Memphis 2327
DC 9776
Philly 11410
Dallas 3697
Nashville 1234
Charlotte 2516
Columbus 3556
Houston 3828

Top ten average density = 5280.4 per sq mile

That is a 5% difference between safest and least safest, pretty insignificant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 05:07 PM
 
263 posts, read 326,486 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
Top 10 safest and most dangerous cities over 500K

City Crime Rankings by Population Group

Safest:
San Jose 2695 per sq mile
Honolulu 3540
El Paso 2447
NYC 27440
Austin 2558
San Diego 4175
San Antonio 2809
Louisville 1866
Fort Worth 1829
Jacksonville 1062

Top ten average density= 5042.1 per sq mile

Dangerous:
Detroit 6571 per sq mile
Baltimore 7889
Memphis 2327
DC 9776
Philly 11410
Dallas 3697
Nashville 1234
Charlotte 2516
Columbus 3556
Houston 3828

Top ten average density = 5280.4 per sq mile

That is a 5% difference between safest and least safest, pretty insignificant.
The safest city >500k average is seriously skewed by New York, and even then there is still a 5% difference. You mention New York in every single one of your posts. New York is the outlier. They've done an amazing job of controlling crime in the city. I'm fully aware of that. Take the two densest cities out of both those lists (Philadelphia and NY) and you have the following averages:

Safest Cities: 2,553
Most Dangerous Cities: 4,599

81% greater density for the most dangerous cities.

You also bring up the SOCIOECONOMICS argument in every single post. I agree with you 100% that socioeconomics plays a huge part in crime. But here's a question for you - can't you see that New York City has just as many socioeconomic problems (if not more) than any of the cities on the safety city list? There are obviously many other factors involved.

Density is a large factor in crime rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 05:11 PM
 
263 posts, read 326,486 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
again, SOCIOECONOMICS plays a much bigger role in why those cities have higher crime rates. Also Mission Viejo has a higher density than Flint and nearly the same as St Louis yet has a far lower crime rate, your own list contradicts your whole argument.

And if you doubled the land area of those high crime cities the crime rate is still the SAME. If you double the density of those low crime cities the crime rate will be the SAME.

NEW YORK CITY is by far the densest city in America and it's has the lowest crime rate of any major American city.

Look at the crime rate of New Orleans and it's density.

I'm still waiting for list that differentiate crimes rates by density of the city. Show me that list if one actually exists?

Also answer this question that I already asked: If there are 5 murders per 100,000 residents how is your chance any higher of being murdered if that 100,000 is packed into 10 square miles versus 50 square miles?

^ can you actually answer this? Your chances of becoming a victim is not any higher in a denser city than it is in a less dense city if the crime rate is the same.

Again, you are the ONLY one making this argument. No one else is, that alone should tell you something right there.
This is a serious question, and please don't take offense. How old are you? Based on your posts, I can't imagine you've taken a single statistics course in your life.

You don't seem to understand how averages work. Of course you can pick out one city on the list of safest cities that has a higher density than the cities on most dangerous cities list. But if you take a look at the mean you see that it is 171% higher for the more dangerous cities.

It's really quite simple. I'd recommend contacting your local community college and enrolling in statistics 101.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 05:18 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,407 posts, read 13,949,114 times
Reputation: 5571
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
This is a serious question, and please don't take offense. How old are you?Based on your posts, I can't imagine you've taken a single statistics course in your life.

You don't seem to understand how averages work. Of course you can pick out one city on the list of safest cities that has a higher density than the cities on most dangerous cities list. But if you take a look at the mean you see that it is 181% higher for the more dangerous cities.

It's really quite simple. I'd recommend contacting your local community college and enrolling in statistics 101.
I was actually thinking the same thing about you. I'm 26 with a degree in urban planning, which includes taking statistics courses, and I deal with statistics for a living. How old are you and what exactly are your qualifications? Still in college and think you know it all?

Again YOU are the ONLY one that is making this argument. No other studies, reports, list, etc.. differentiate crime rates based on city density
b/c it doesn't make a difference in how safe or unsafe a city is.

If you're such a statistical genius then why can't you actually answer this question?

If there are 5 murders per 100,000 residents how is your chance any higher of being murdered if that 100,000 is packed into 10 square miles versus 50 square miles?

I dunno whether it's just stubbornness or ignorance but you seriously just don't get it. You have CONTRADICTED yourself in your own post, have failed to provide any credible list that differentiates crime rates based on city density, and have yet to answer my question twice already.

And here let me post this again to show how your own "evidence" contradicts itself. Take a look at the stuff highlighted in red:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
You're wrong. You need to search a bit harder.

5 Highest Crime Cities 2009 (along with population density per square mile):
Camden, NJ 9,057
St. Louis, MO 5,724
Oakland, CA 7,209
Detroit, MI 6,571
Flint, MI 3,714
Average 6,455

5 Lowest Crime Cities 2009:
Colonie, NY 1,413
Amherst, NY 2,178
Mission Viejo, CA 5,375
Irvine, CA 1,184 - this is how many people are per sq km not sq mi., it's over 3,000 per sq mile.
Ramapo, NY 1,778
Average 2,386

Density of 5 cities with highest crime is 171% higher than that of the 5 cities with the lowest crime.
You are alone in making this BS argument but for some reason still don't get that. This "theory" has been debunked before time and time again.

Last edited by sav858; 01-15-2010 at 05:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 05:31 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
10,407 posts, read 13,949,114 times
Reputation: 5571
And to further illustrate how hypocritical you are and how you contradict yourself, you said this in a previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
Your list of random small cities in the midwest and east coast proves nothing. Comparing San Francisco to Evansville IN is useless. Compare San Francisco to similar sized cities and you'd see that SF is safer than most of them. Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore, etc.
Then you go and compared poor, urban cities to wealthier suburban cities with differing populations as well. What kind of logic does that make?

Honestly, you just seem like some defensive SF booster than can't grasp the fact that SF has a crime rate higher than many other cities. You're reaching here to try to prove something that's been dis proven before, which is probably why you're the only one making that argument on this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 06:45 PM
 
1,687 posts, read 3,785,225 times
Reputation: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
Here are the top 8 US cities by population density:

San Francisco is safer and has less crime than 7 of the 8 cities.
There are studies in the last 10 years or so discounting the impact of urban density by itself. But the density-alone myth persists among many people. That is one reason people fight higher density housing being built in their neighborhoods no matter the planned income of the new housing residents.

High density AND lower incomes combined (and/or with other demographic/socioeconomic factors such as average age) will show much more relationship to crime rates than density alone.

San Francisco is also very different than those other cities you are trying to use as peers.

Taking those same 8 high density cities, San Francisco has a much higher median household income than all others.
New York - $51,116
San Francisco - $73,798
Chicago - $46,911
Boston - $51,688
Philadelphia - $36,976
Miami - $28,333
Washington - $57,936
Baltimore - $40,313

So San Francisco could be considered an income outlier as much as you argue other cities are density outliers.

Based on incomes alone maybe we should be wondering why San Francisco is not safer, like one of safest cities of any size or density in the country. But again that would be only one data point, not something to build a complete analysis around.

Comparing San Francisco to those other 7 cities only because of density is just wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2010, 06:54 PM
 
2,958 posts, read 3,749,621 times
Reputation: 1365
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
Compare San Francisco to similar sized cities and you'd see that SF is safer than most of them. Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore, etc.

I am referring to cities of similar size, which is why I listed Boston, Philadelphia, DC, etc (again, all more dangerous than SF).

I've noticed that you make no differentiation between dense, urban cities (SF, Chicago, NYC, Phildadelphia, DC, Boston) and sprawling, suburban-like cities (San Jose, Jacksonville, Columbus, Austin). Dense, urban cities are far more likely to have a higher crime rate per capita than sprawling suburban cities. When there are more people squished in an area, you can expect to see a greater rate of crime.

Here are the top 8 US cities by population density:
New York
San Francisco
Chicago
Boston
Philadelphia
Miami
Washington
Baltimore

San Francisco is safer and has less crime than 7 of the 8 cities. Only one that's safer is New York. New York has done an amazing job in the last 10-15 years of preventing crime.
I don't really want to rehash this argument since it seems to have already concluded, but I gotta ask where do you get that Boston is more dangerous than SF? You mentioned it several times and used it as an example for your density argument, but I believe you were incorrect in your assessment.

2009 City Crime Rate Rankings
(Ranking - Score)

93. San Francisco - 80.51

104. Boston - 73.80

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2009...9_Rank_Rev.pdf

They're actually very close, but SF has slightly higher crime. I think certain years Boston has had more than SF, but they're fairly comparable really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gotigers123 View Post
That's just common sense.
No, its not. Crime rates are determined by the number of people vs. the number or crimes. Density only comes into play in addition to crime rates if you want to figure what city is more likely to have crimes occur in the vicinity of more people than the next. Other than that its pretty useless and irrelevant.

Although many dense cities do have high crime rates. The only thing is the densest parts of those cities often aren't the highest crime neighborhoods in those cities. So although its already been proven, I too have to say that your theory is incorrect. And regardless your theory was undermined by the fact that the two densest cities in that list were also the two safest lol. Not to mention many of the most dangerous cities like Detroit, Compton, New Orleans, etc. aren't anywhere near as dense as the cities in your list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 10:16 AM
 
1,550 posts, read 1,913,879 times
Reputation: 1007
I recall someone in this board proudly claimed how SF does not really have much of violent crime and how safe the sunset district is. So here you go:

Man fatally shot in S.F. home-invasion robbery
"The death marks the city's sixth homicide of the year." Hmm..what a great way to begin 2010. Does anyone know the count in Detroit so far?

Again this is just not some random shooting! Just read how bad the story is and make your own assessment about whether SF truly has a huge crime problem or not. The funniest part is how little investigation the newspaper did! Even they take it as an accepted part of life-
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2010, 11:30 AM
 
248 posts, read 526,306 times
Reputation: 307
How the hell can there be all of this crime in such an expensive, supposedly ever gentrifying city?

It makes no sense to me...everyone on this forum suggests that there is no affordable housing and every neighborhood is yuppified, but then where do all of these criminals live? Surely they don't take the BART over to SF from Richmond/Oakland and hang out there all day long? Kinda makes no sense.

I think people are lying when they say SF is all gentrified and white/yuppified. There's obviously a lot of fed up **** occurring in SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top