Is Chicago really going downhill (Cicero, Calumet City: section 8, 2013, crime)

[MassVt]

The fact that we have an aging population all across the US is certainly a factor.

[Lookout Kid]

Here's my take on the murder rate in Chicago... Along with the rest of the U.S., Chicago saw the HUGE drops in crime through the 90s and early 00s. We've sort of "bottomed out" in terms of crime reductions for the time being, and we will see minor fluctuations year over year. One year it will be up a little bit, one year it will be down a little bit. But we won't see a return to the awful 1991 levels any time soon, and the city is a safer place now than it was through the very tough 15 year period of 1976-1991 which saw huge increases in crime. And it's safer now than it was through the 1990s, when crime was decreasing to it's current level, but still higher than today.

So why did we bottom out at a higher crime level than New York and Los Angeles? Well, both cities have had significantly larger "gentrication" demand than Chicago, and that has really transformed these cities to a greater extent than here, even though the changes in Chicago have been dramatic. Additionally, New York was much more serious about crime reduction and took bolder steps under Giuliani, which were often controversial. And Los Angeles is a different animal from Chicago, with a very different neighborhood and demographic structure. In spite of the oversized influence of L.A. "Gangsta Rap", Los Angeles has a relatively small African American population, but a much larger problem with Latino gangs--and their neighborhoods are less segregated.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by BRU67

even though nightly City death toll these days isn't all that far off the body counts that shocked people 45 years ago from Vietnam.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Attrill

No, seriously, no. Learn some history. 1968 saw over 16,000 US soldiers killed in Vietnam. That's more than 16 times as many deaths as Chicago saw at it's worst, and more than 32 times as many deaths as Chicago has been seeing lately.

Correct.

And that's just the U.S. soldier body count. The total body count in Vietnam was far, far worse. Idiotic comparison, BRU67.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I said "isn't that far off" as a qualifier in my post.

When one thing exceeds another totally different thing by a factor of 32, that is not "isn't that far off" by anyone's definition. Please, leave the internets and take some logic, mathematics, history, and social science classes before you come back.

Oh, and people who call you out on your absolutely ridiculously false claims are not being "defensive." Nice try.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I would bet that the homicide rates have dropped in even the bad neighborhoods. Anyone have the homicide stats for individual neighborhoods going 20 years back?

At one point within the past year or two I heard a story on NPR saying that Englewood is literally the only one of the 77 community areas of Chicago that has experienced an increase in homicides over that time. The other 76, they said, have decreased or at least held steady. I never bothered to look it up, but I'd believe it.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

At one point within the past year or two I heard a story on NPR saying that Englewood is literally the only one of the 77 community areas of Chicago that has experienced an increase in homicides over that time. The other 76, they said, have decreased or at least held steady. I never bothered to look it up, but I'd believe it.

Although to be fair, many of the bad neighborhoods have lost population, so a per capita homicide rate would be the best apples to apples comparison. That being said, Most neighborhoods haven't lost half their population, so even with this adjustment, I'm sure the improvement trend still stands.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are pockets (huge pockets even) of Chicago with sky high crime rates. However, you can't also deny that in the vast majority of the city, crime rates have decreased dramatically from historical highs.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I don't think anyone is denying that there are pockets (huge pockets even) of Chicago with sky high crime rates. However, you can't also deny that in the vast majority of the city, crime rates have decreased dramatically from historical highs.

I think the hotspots have just shifted around. I've always believed that the removal of the Robert Taylor Homes and other high-rise housing projects around the city get blamed for crime dispersal more than they should, but it surely had some impact on the geographic distribution of crime on the South and West sides.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

When one thing exceeds another totally different thing by a factor of 32, that is not "isn't that far off" by anyone's definition. Please, leave the internets and take some logic, mathematics, history, and social science classes before you come back.

Oh, and people who call you out on your absolutely ridiculously false claims are not being "defensive." Nice try.

Well, just because we don't have a yearly death toll of 16,500 or whatever the worst year in 'Nam was doesn't mean everything is ok. I think the level of violence in the City is still unacceptably high and that there are too many apologists for it, or people who ignore it so long as it isn't in their direct backyard or they have a feeling it's moving elsewhere. So I used the example that I did, which obviously didn't go over very well with some Chicagoans (though I did get some positive ratings from some suburbanites, LOL!). Hopefully the crime rate can (continue) to go down all over the City so people will stop comparing the City to a combat zone.

I'd second Oakparkdude's request for neighborhood crime stats going back 20 years. I'd also like to know how crime in the south suburbs have fared during this span too. Anyone?

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I'd also like to know how crime in the south suburbs have fared during this span too. Anyone?

We all know the answer to this, but it would also be interesting to see crime rates for the entire metro area over the last several decades. For every shiny new X-urban subdivision in Sugar Grove or Plainfield, there is a declining neighborhood in Lansing or Park Forest (threw that in for Urza to keep him engaged ).

But many south suburbs are also losing population or not growing as fast as the west/north, so their influence on metropolitan numbers are decreasing relative to the whole.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

We all know the answer to this, but it would also be interesting to see crime rates for the entire metro area over the last several decades. For every shiny new X-urban subdivision in Sugar Grove or Plainfield, there is a declining neighborhood in Lansing or Park Forest (threw that in for Urza to keep him engaged ).

But many south suburbs are also losing population or not growing as fast as the west/north, so their influence on metropolitan numbers are decreasing relative to the whole.

My suspicion is that it increased as population densities and low income percentages increased. My guess would be that poor schools and quality of life in Chicago prompted individuals in troubled and hopeless neighborhoods to seek out solutions they could afford. The middle classes in the affordable south suburbs then fled to those shiny new X-urban subdivisions and before long, we had bad urban/suburban neighborhoods and, of course, the corresponding drops in crime in the City that we're discussing here.

But I don't want to exaggerate, God knows! I too would like to see the interplay over the entire region, not just Chicago proper.