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.
Yes we are looking at the same thing. Please divide the number of violent crimes in atlanta by its population. Then please repeat excercise for houston. You will see Atlanta is higher I don't understand why you cant do this simple maths procedure.
And I didnt say moving to CA as a state. I specifically said san fran which is due a huge 8 or 9 quake. Despite the buildings been "earthquake proof" there will still be disasters and large death tolls. So yes in my opinion not taking this into consideration before moving there is extremely stupid. Obviously people who want to move there it's there choice, many others would be put off by it though.
Do you NOT understand or unable to comprehend that Houston is 627.8 sq miles.?
Dallas is 355.8 sq mi.
These are just boundaries that incorporate areas that if Atlanta encompassed that much area would also be suburban areas in nature but within city boundaries.
Atlanta is 132 sq miles surrounded by hundreds of municipalities and unincorporated areas
Imagine what Atlanta would be if it had stronger annexation laws?That means Marietta,Sandy Springs,Mabelton,Alpharetta,Johns Creek etc would all be Atlanta proper.
The crime rate would definitely be lower.This is one of the many reasons you cannot rank these cities using FBI numbers.Again even they advise that its inaccurate to do so.
Do you NOT understand or unable to comprehend that Houston is 627.8 sq miles.?
Dallas is 355.8 sq mi.
These are just boundaries that incorporate areas that if Atlanta encompassed that much area would also be suburban areas in nature but within city boundaries.
Atlanta is 132 sq miles surrounded by hundreds of municipalities and unincorporated areas
Imagine what Atlanta would be if it had stronger annexation laws?That means Marietta,Sandy Springs,Mabelton,Alpharetta,Johns Creek etc would all be Atlanta proper.
The crime rate would definitely be lower.This is one of the many reasons you cannot rank these cities using FBI numbers.Again even they advise that its inaccurate to do so.
Its got nothing to do with city size though.
By that argument you just gave....if atlanta had houstons population then the violent crime would be higher. You cant dance round these numbers anyway you look at it the percent is higher in atlanta than houston. for violent crime regardless of size or metro.
No SLC doesnt appeal to me the winters are probably worse than London!
Ive never denied dallas hasnt got higher crime than London. Ive never denied dallas doesnt have high crime either! Im just saying it's lower than atlantas.
Cities I will not consider due to high overall crime and constantly seeing them on the most dangerous cities list are-
Atlanta
Baltimore
DC
Cleveland
Detroit
Philadelphia
Memphis
Cities I wont consider due to massive earthquake threat:
San fran
San jose
Cities I am actively looking into
Dallas
Houston
Las vegas (henderson)
I would say that Las Vegas would have the least risk of severe weather of any cities. The only issue you would face would be a dry heat, but it's actually quite tolerable in Vegas.
Economically, I would question why you would move to Vegas. The housing market there had the bottom fall out a few years ago. I would stick to Texas, to be honest with you.
Its got nothing to do with city size though.
By that argument you just gave....if atlanta had houstons population then the violent crime would be higher. You cant dance round these numbers anyway you look at it the percent is higher in atlanta than houston. for violent crime regardless of size or metro.
No SLC doesnt appeal to me the winters are probably worse than London!
Ive never denied dallas hasnt got higher crime than London. Ive never denied dallas doesnt have high crime either! Im just saying it's lower than atlantas.
Cities I will not consider due to high overall crime and constantly seeing them on the most dangerous cities list are-
Atlanta
Baltimore
DC
Cleveland
Detroit
Philadelphia
Memphis
Cities I wont consider due to massive earthquake threat:
San fran
San jose
Cities I am actively looking into
Dallas
Houston
Las vegas (henderson)
When you pick your city, are you only going to live and stay within city-limits?
I would say that Las Vegas would have the least risk of severe weather of any cities. The only issue you would face would be a dry heat, but it's actually quite tolerable in Vegas.
Economically, I would question why you would move to Vegas. The housing market there had the bottom fall out a few years ago. I would stick to Texas, to be honest with you.
Yeah the economy will be loads better in Texas. Plus no vegas sports teams
The vegas heat is actually very tolerable I agree. I have been there before in july and walked from stratosphere to mirage hotel at 3pm in 105 heat with a couple of beers. It was hard but bearable and I didn't even sweat hardly. I would not even attempt such a walk in dallas or houston I doubt id be able to do even quarter of a mile without being drenched in sweat and in discomfort.
The no zoning in houston is a concern though im struggling to see a positive from it?!
Maybe outskirts of the city. Such as Richardson for dallas as an example
Then you should refer to our exchange about metropolitan areas and consider metro crime rates. Metros like Atlanta and DC are generally safer. The Las Vegas area isn't doing so well either.
Maybe outskirts of the city. Such as Richardson for dallas as an example
You say you are concerned about crime but I see you are just all over the place.
This is why you make absolutely NO sense whatsoever.You don;t even want to live in the cities themselves.
The metros are huge and differ greatly from within their own region as well as from city to city.
Would it not make more logical sense to pick a suburb where you want to be and compare them instead of the cities themselves?
You say you are concerned about crime but I see you are just all over the place.
This is why you make absolutely NO sense whatsoever.You don;t even want to live in the cities themselves.
The metros are huge and differ greatly from within their own region as well as from city to city.
Would it not make more logical sense to pick a suburb where you want to be and compare them instead of the cities themselves?
I may not be living in the city but I will probably be working there. Travelling there and walking about there on daily basis. Doing weekend activities there too sometimes for example. Also hopefully go to sports events and games.
Most suburbs and metros are safe and relatively equal to each other. But I dont wana be confined to the suburbs I wana actually enjoy the city and go out for meals drinks and general activities.
Detroit has excellent safe suburbs for example.
I may not be living in the city but I will probably be working there. Travelling there and walking about there on daily basis. Doing weekend activities there too sometimes for example. Also hopefully go to sports events and games. Most suburbs and metros are safe and relatively equal to each other. But I dont wana be confined to the suburbs I wana actually enjoy the city and go out for meals drinks and general activities.
Detroit has excellent safe suburbs for example.
If that was the case, the FBI would've not calculated different stats. Just don't come here and expect that everything will happen in one confined area (like within city-limits). Many areas have widespread crime and are considered "patchy". We're just giving you a heads-up since you're supposedly concerned about your safety and all.
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.