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.
And as discussed numerous times on here, the city might as well be 2 cities. The continuous area from around 35h street south of downtown following between the lake and I-90 (and the ones adjacent to the interestate) including NW areas to the edge of the city has a total population of 1,421,598 people (as of the 2018 Census) with 60 total homicides. That's a rate of 4.22 per 100K which is lower than San Francisco and not much higher than NYC.. That population is almost identical to the population of the city of San Diego.
Carving out the wealthiest part of Chicago would still only produce a murder rate 50% higher than San Diego's
I'm not sure how policing in the Chicago region works, but the San Diego region is entirely within one county and that helps significantly with coordination across jurisdictions on crime, specifically gangs, but also things like graffiti. That is part of the reason San Diego (city and metro) has low crime...and very little graffiti. Sidenote, also the reason it has a great library system
San Diego never went through a extreme abandonment of the city that other metros experienced during postwar suburbanization. Downtown languished, but the high housing prices have kept most neighborhoods stable for decades. Generally speaking, there seems to be a lot less abject poverty or destitution even in the poorest neighborhoods. The City of San Diego (and school district) is also fortunate to have a large share of its wealthiest communities within city boundaries, which means that tax dollars can be diverted to poorer areas. The city has done a good job investing in poorer communities, with things like brand new schools and community facilities.
Here's a fun comparison of: Mountain View, one of San Diego's poorest and crime-filled neighborhoods. Mountain View, CA, one of the wealthiest places in the country.
I was selective of neighborhoods of course, but it is interesting to see that they aren't terribly far off at first glance.
Carving out the wealthiest part of Chicago would still only produce a murder rate 50% higher than San Diego's
LOL........ you most definitely do not know Chicago if you think that the area from 35th street south of downtown all the way to 10 miles north of downtown following I-90 including some areas west of I-90 all the way to O'Hare airport is even close to majority wealthy. The majority of that area minus a few areas is solidly working class no more than dead center middle class (again, apart from a few areas). And there are actually some definitely lower middle class areas included in that entire area too.
That area comprises 32 different community areas. 18 of those areas have a median income below the United States Median Household Income ($63,179) which in total has a population of 720,607 people, or a little over half of that whole area's population living in areas where the median income is below the US's median income. 2 of the areas I included have median incomes of less than $30,000/year with another 3 areas between $30K and $40K median (well below the US MHHI).
If I just carved out the actual wealthiest parts of downtown and a little north of it, the rate wouldn't be 4.2 per 100K. It would be a bit lower. If you take solidly downtown community areas and include a handful of more areas on the north side that does comprise what would be considered mostly well off - total population is about 557,000 people (larger than Atlanta and Miami, and about the same population as Baltimore) with a homicide rate of 2.08 per 100K in 2019.
Last edited by marothisu; 01-02-2020 at 09:02 PM..
Carving out the wealthiest part of Chicago would still only produce a murder rate 50% higher than San Diego's
I'm not sure how policing in the Chicago region works, but the San Diego region is entirely within one county and that helps significantly with coordination across jurisdictions on crime, specifically gangs, but also things like graffiti. That is part of the reason San Diego (city and metro) has low crime...and very little graffiti. Sidenote, also the reason it has a great library system
San Diego never went through a extreme abandonment of the city that other metros experienced during postwar suburbanization. Downtown languished, but the high housing prices have kept most neighborhoods stable for decades. Generally speaking, there seems to be a lot less abject poverty or destitution even in the poorest neighborhoods. The City of San Diego (and school district) is also fortunate to have a large share of its wealthiest communities within city boundaries, which means that tax dollars can be diverted to poorer areas. The city has done a good job investing in poorer communities, with things like brand new schools and community facilities.
Here's a fun comparison of: Mountain View, one of San Diego's poorest and crime-filled neighborhoods. Mountain View, CA, one of the wealthiest places in the country.
I was selective of neighborhoods of course, but it is interesting to see that they aren't terribly far off at first glance.
Well it’s also worth pointing out that San Diego was largely spared the sort of systemic gang culture and violence that you see in places like LA and Chicago. The gang problem in LA proper has certainly subsided in a meaningful way as gangs are pushed out into more fringe areas of the metro area, but in SD it was never a problem of the same magnitude. In Chicago on the other hand, gangs are still very much prevalent in the city proper which directly corresponds to its murder rate.
As a city historically worse murder rate wise than Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, DC in the last 30 years NO should get more recognition for bringing it down to 119. That's around 30 per which is by no means safe but a huge improvement from the early 2010's.
Yep, 120 is the lowest number since 1971 when there were 117 murders.
According to this site Dayton only had 30 homicides which sounds more accurate, I always watch the WHIO 7 news and it’s not very often that there is a homicide and the number is higher because of a mass shooting. https://www.roadsnacks.net/these-are...itals-of-ohio/
While I agree the homicides are too high for sure, it's come down nearly 300 homicides compared to 2016 which was a crazy spike. That is a very notable decrease when it could have easily gone up. Consider that many cities in the US right now have actually been increasing with homicides, not decreasing It's now in line with what it was back in 2015 before the crazy spike, although 2013 and 2014 were lower. And you're talking about "world class city." Chicago is considered very much a world class city and anybody who is actually familiar with all the offerings of the city knows this.
And as discussed numerous times on here, the city might as well be 2 cities. The continuous area from around 35h street south of downtown following between the lake and I-90 (and the ones adjacent to the interestate) including NW areas to the edge of the city has a total population of 1,421,598 people (as of the 2018 Census) with 60 total homicides. That's a rate of 4.22 per 100K which is lower than San Francisco and not much higher than NYC.. That population is almost identical to the population of the city of San Diego.
Well it's not like it was gonna get much higher than 770. The 2016 total in Chicago was pretty much the absolute worst possible case scenario. The Chicago city government might as well have been *trying to get the highest possible body count, because that's basically what ended up happening. I love how the federal government and the media just brushed it off as inevitable and they never once actually tried to get to the bottom of it. Instead they came up with the same old root causes that plague every poor, largely black city, poverty, drugs, gangs, guns... Ect ect. So if those factors and nothing else is what caused the homicide rate in the nation's 3rd largest city to shoot up from 17 per 100k to 28 per 100k in one year, why has Philadelphia, a city with nearly the same black population and a much higher black percentage, along with a substantially higher poverty rate, not reached a homicide rate of 28 per 100k since 1991? It's gotten close to that a few times, but it's never had a 55% Spike in one year to my knowledge.
Last edited by KoNgFooCj; 01-02-2020 at 09:18 PM..
According to this site Dayton only had 30 homicides which sounds more accurate, I always watch the WHIO 7 news and it’s not very often that there is a homicide and the number is higher because of a mass shooting. https://www.roadsnacks.net/these-are...itals-of-ohio/
Well it's not like it was gonna get much higher than 770. The 2016 total in Chicago was pretty much the absolute worst possible case scenario. The Chicago city government might as well have been *trying to get the highest possible body count, because that's basically what ended up happening. I love how the federal government and the media just brushed it off as inevitable and they never once actually tried to get to the bottom of it. Instead they came up with the same old root causes that plague every poor, largely black city, poverty, drugs, gangs, guns... Ect ect. So if those factors and nothing else is what caused the homicide rate in the nation's 3rd largest city to shoot up fr6
First of all, the 90s were even worse - like almost 150-200 more homicides per year, but that's another story. It was crazy mostly everywhere in the country.
Anyway, absolutely nobody was brushing that off at all. Not sure what media you were listening to or reading but even CNN and New York Times was giving it tons of crap. Pretty much every media regardless of their normal political slant was definitely giving it crap. And the local media in Chicago was giving it even more crap than national which is crazy. Certain people in the White House give it crap but papers like the Chicago Tribune were just as critical as him if not even more critical.
Really not sure what you were looking at, but that's definitely not what the reality was. Even as the numbers have come down the media is still very critical, especially the local media. Here's something from today from the Editorial Board of the Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...kia-story.html
On that note, the Chicago Tribune actually had a very good article about why it spiked in 2016. Having trouble finding it though. Anyway, one of the big reasons was the creation of a power vacuum with some gangs essentially which fractured some of the big gangs into smaller gangs that started fighting each other when before that they weren't fighting one another.
Yikes, that’s not good I figured it would be going down with the the worst areas becoming abandoned.
9 of those 51 include the mass shooting, but even omitting that one event still would put Dayton right below 30 per 100K basically the same as Cleveland and Kansas City.
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.
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.
