Is Boston more dangerous than NYC and Los Angeles? (Newton: section 8, 2013)

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

South End is on the more dangerous side, its expensive but also full of housing projects...40% of the housing. Lots of shootings

The South End does not have a lot of shootings and less than 10% is projects. But yes, it is certainly more dangerous than Brookline.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

The South End does not have a lot of shootings and less than 10% is projects. But yes, it is certainly more dangerous than Brookline.

It is more dangerous than pretty much any neighborhood in Boston other than Dorchester or Roxbury. The "good parts" of the South End are never more than a few blocks from the bad parts. The area near BMC and I-93 is especially bad. Some luxury condos and brownstones don't make a neighborhood safe.

[DJX3000]

Here there is another good website comparing Boston vs Los Angeles in different aspects.... and Boston is safer than LA:
https://my.teleport.org/compare/drt2.../Los%20Angeles

although housing and cost of living is worse in Boston than Los Angeles.

and also Boston vs London:
https://my.teleport.org/compare/drt2...n/gcpvj/London

and again, Boston is safer than London!

[thenewtexan]

Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome

Because Brookline and Newton, while technically "cities" or "towns" are, like Arlington and Cambridge, not really suburbs and are considered part of Boston--the city itself. They all use Boston transit systems.

No, they are not part of the city of Boston just because they use the same transit system. Since they are separate cities, they are not part of the city of Boston. You just contradicted yourself.

[DJX3000]

I don't know why the links above won't work anymore... here the links again, where Boston seems to be safer than LA and London:

https://teleport.org/compare/boston-and-los-angeles

https://teleport.org/compare/boston-and-london

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I know. I'm just saying that the LA crime vs. Boston crime comparison isn't really accurate because it's not an apples to apples comparison. Boston numbers are based on a small cluster of mostly inner-city neighborhoods. LA's numbers are based on a spread out area that includes both inner-city neighborhoods and lower density suburban neighborhoods. It easily skews the data in LA's favor and paints a picture that in the gran scheme of things, is really not accurate.

This is exactly what i would disagree with, ther eis no skewing in LAs favor. Boston's city boundaries arent arbitrary at all.... LA has the same population density as Boston but a much larger population, its inner city areas are bigger than Bostons as are its nice parts. But to act like Bostons crime doesn't matter because Boston boundaries are small is disingenuous and insensitive to the problems and needs of particular areas in the city proper.

[believe007]

Idk....I just met a guy from Boston.....
He's going to Berklee college of music.
From what he said Boston is a
very cool place thats really fun & quaint......
I particularly loved it when he suddenly
broke into talking to me with a Boston accent

He happens to originally be from here so he knows
what a true bad neighborhood actually is lol

He said it's easy to know where to avoid there.....
I'd say NY would be way more dangerous.

[civis]

Originally Posted by DJX3000

and also Boston vs London:
https://my.teleport.org/compare/drt2...n/gcpvj/London

and again, Boston is safer than London!

That's unbelievable BS for anyone who lived in London like me.
UK generally has nearly no violent crime comparing to US, which is absolute leader in violence in the whole western world.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by civis

That's unbelievable BS for anyone who lived in London like me.
UK generally has nearly no violent crime comparing to US, which is absolute leader in violence in the whole western world.

Not really though. All kinds of fun stuff here: Latest London Crime news

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

This is exactly what i would disagree with, ther eis no skewing in LAs favor. Boston's city boundaries arent arbitrary at all.... LA has the same population density as Boston but a much larger population, its inner city areas are bigger than Bostons as are its nice parts. But to act like Bostons crime doesn't matter because Boston boundaries are small is disingenuous and insensitive to the problems and needs of particular areas in the city proper.

I don't think you understand what's being said about the issue with statistics vs. city limits.

Who said Boston's crime doesn't matter? All I've ever argued is that the crime statistics the OP is referring to are absolutely impacted by the political boundaries of Boston's city limits. Since Boston's city limits are only 49 square miles, the crime data posted here for Boston mostly includes the urban core. LA is 470 square miles (almost 10x larger than Boston). So the crime data includes the urban core, but it also includes a bunch of lower-density, middle class (and some better off) suburbs which offset the higher crime numbers of LA's urban core. LA's overall crime score benefits from the large city limits because that huge land area includes a lot of quieter suburbs which make the the overall score better. Boston's score is mostly based on data from inner-city neighborhoods. It doesn't benefit from a large proportion of lower density, more affluent suburbs like LA does (safer places like Milton, Dedham, Newton, Watertown, Needham, etc. would all be included in the data if all things were equal as they'd fall well within the 470 square mile radius from the city center that LA benefits from). To illustrate the point even further, Metropolitan Boston fares a good deal better than Metropolitan LA in terms of crime.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that politically boundaries like city limits- especially when they're as radically different as Boston and LA- are going to skew some data comparisons.