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.
Minneapolis should not be on this list. While it is less blighted than average, it should not be at the top of this list.
Large cities with least blight:
Austin
Raleigh
Virginia Beach
Denver(?-not sure on this one)
Seattle
San Francisco (lots of homeless problems though, which is a different issue)
Charlotte just misses the cut, although it's pretty good in this regard too.
I generally agree with this although I think Denver is a bit more ghetto than the rest, nearer to Charlotte. I also wouldnt call VA beach a major city
Define "major city"? Is it an MSA of 2 million residents or a higher floor? I see some reference suburbs of large cities but I think one must consider the metro area because some core cities, like Atlanta, are very small relative to the total MSA (10%) while Houston's city population is large (Over 31%). And some inner suburbs are more urbanized than outer ring towns.
Incredibly, Singapore has a violent crime rate that is almost as low as that of Irvine, CA. Which means Singapore is safer than Lake Forest, CA, Plano, TX, and as safe as Sugar Land, TX. Incredible for a city of nearly six million. While Muslim immigrants to Europe have resulted in a drastic spike in terrorism and crime, Singapore maintains a very low crime rate despite having a large Muslim population, and being the most religiously diverse country in the world.
I actually think Sri Lanka is more religiously diverse than Singapore. But your point still stands.
Define "major city"? Is it an MSA of 2 million residents or a higher floor? I see some reference suburbs of large cities but I think one must consider the metro area because some core cities, like Atlanta, are very small relative to the total MSA (10%) while Houston's city population is large (Over 31%). And some inner suburbs are more urbanized than outer ring towns.
I personally consider a major city as one with an MSA that hits 5 million +
I would also throw in Boston, Phoenix and SF. everything else is a regional powerhouse and Riverside is suburban LA so if your city isn't bigger than suburban LA (plus a few minor metros to be fair so more likely 3 million+ is the true size of the Western IE that's connected to LA). Either way cities in that 3-4.5 million range may be considered major but I would rather leave all doubt at what a major city is and stop the cut-off at the SF MSA.
So their is 12 MSA's that are major. Most cities fall into two categories of blighted. Their is low-intensity ghetto, the type you normally see in rundown small towns. These areas often cover large areas of a city and their is always debate whether these areas are "The Ghetto" or not the Ghetto. I define these areas as murder rates between 4-12 per 100,000 people (zip codes are the best area to define these as zip codes tend not to include widely variant areas unless very large/ some areas as in
NYC zip codes are a bit to small). These are the murder rates that you see in the worst of Europe's ghettos (actually closer to 3-10 per 100,000 but my point still stands). The majority of The Bronx or San Antonio outside of areas in the Northern 3/5, falls into this area. "Ghetto" suburbs of Dallas also fall into this area. Areas like parts of Arlington, Mesquite, Garland etcetera, but on the very low end. Maybe it should be three categories but i'm too lazy.
Then their are high intensity ghettos who normally average 12-20 per 100,000 or higher. These are the areas where questioning how ghetto they are isn't a problem. These areas also are normally much smaller than the area above in land mass in most metros.
Both of these areas (low intensity/high intensity) have high crime rates when you factor in the tons of violent crime that happens constantly regardless of how much murders happen.
The Twelve Biggest MSA's, just by metros FBI UCR 2017.
Violent Crime Homicide per 100,000
1. Houston-593 Chicago-9.4
2. Los Angeles-497 Philadelphia-8.1
3. San Francisco-477 Atlanta-6.7
4. Phoenix-471 Houston-6.4
5. Miami-458 Miami-6.1
6. Chicago-445* Phoenix-5.7
7. Philadelphia-429 Dallas-5.4
8. Atlanta-368 Los Angeles-4.8
9. Dallas-367 Washington-4.5
10. New York-333 San Francisco-4.2
11. Boston-305 New York-2.8
12. Washington-273 Boston-2.6
*Chicago doesn't have Gary's crime rate so I used last years violent crime rate to calculate this year. Either way not using this list as the decider for the thread just wanted to put some stats out there.
Either way out of major cities my answer is Boston it's main city isn't that violent and while their are several violent suburbs Dorchester and Mattapan with a combined population of less than 180,000 are the only two high intensity areas and their on the very border of it. Boston does have several low-intensity hoods which is a knock against it.
The second place would be Washington D.C, South D.C is high intensity or low-intensity and the inner beltway of PG are high intensity as well as low-intensity. Virtually all of NOVA and outer PG as well as MoCo is not hood except in very small areas with less than 100,000 people in those regions across these areas. In total we are talking about less than 600,000 people living in any sort of hood.
3. is NYC, now NYC's MSA has Westchester County. Morris, Somerset, Bergen, Suffolk, Middlesex which essentially vast non-ghetto areas, that are very wealthy.
Not to mention Staten Island, Manhattan, Queens, Passaic County, Essex, Nassau, Rockland, Hudson, Union, which have tons of wealthy areas as well as some low intensity and high intensity hoods.
Newark, Northern Brooklyn, The Bronx, Paterson, Southern Queens, Hempstead, Passaic, Elizabeth, Paterson, Yonkers etcetera aren't big enough to make a difference of virtually entire counties worth of wealth.
4. is Dallas. Dallas has some sketchy areas as well as Fort Worth but the northern expanse of roughly 3 million of non-Dallas or Fort Worth suburbs essentially counters all of the South Dallas and East Fort Worth shenanigans. Plus the suburban areas of Dallas quoted as ghetto while worse than the bad parts of say NOVA is above and beyond better than any real suburban hood that you could find in Los Angeles or Houston.
I personally consider a major city as one with an MSA that hits 5 million +
I would also throw in Boston, Phoenix and SF. everything else is a regional powerhouse and Riverside is suburban LA so if your city isn't bigger than suburban LA (plus a few minor metros to be fair so more likely 3 million+ is the true size of the Western IE that's connected to LA). Either way cities in that 3-4.5 million range may be considered major but I would rather leave all doubt at what a major city is and stop the cut-off at the SF MSA.
So their is 12 MSA's that are major. Most cities fall into two categories of blighted. Their is low-intensity ghetto, the type you normally see in rundown small towns. These areas often cover large areas of a city and their is always debate whether these areas are "The Ghetto" or not the Ghetto. I define these areas as murder rates between 4-12 per 100,000 people (zip codes are the best area to define these as zip codes tend not to include widely variant areas unless very large/ some areas as in
NYC zip codes are a bit to small). These are the murder rates that you see in the worst of Europe's ghettos (actually closer to 3-10 per 100,000 but my point still stands). The majority of The Bronx or San Antonio outside of areas in the Northern 3/5, falls into this area. "Ghetto" suburbs of Dallas also fall into this area. Areas like parts of Arlington, Mesquite, Garland etcetera, but on the very low end. Maybe it should be three categories but i'm too lazy.
Then their are high intensity ghettos who normally average 12-20 per 100,000 or higher. These are the areas where questioning how ghetto they are isn't a problem. These areas also are normally much smaller than the area above in land mass in most metros.
Both of these areas (low intensity/high intensity) have high crime rates when you factor in the tons of violent crime that happens constantly regardless of how much murders happen.
The Twelve Biggest MSA's, just by metros FBI UCR 2017.
Violent Crime Homicide per 100,000
1. Houston-593 Chicago-9.4
2. Los Angeles-497 Philadelphia-8.1
3. San Francisco-477 Atlanta-6.7
4. Phoenix-471 Houston-6.4
5. Miami-458 Miami-6.1
6. Chicago-445* Phoenix-5.7
7. Philadelphia-429 Dallas-5.4
8. Atlanta-368 Los Angeles-4.8
9. Dallas-367 Washington-4.5
10. New York-333 San Francisco-4.2
11. Boston-305 New York-2.8
12. Washington-273 Boston-2.6
*Chicago doesn't have Gary's crime rate so I used last years violent crime rate to calculate this year. Either way not using this list as the decider for the thread just wanted to put some stats out there.
Either way out of major cities my answer is Boston it's main city isn't that violent and while their are several violent suburbs Dorchester and Mattapan with a combined population of less than 180,000 are the only two high intensity areas and their on the very border of it. Boston does have several low-intensity hoods which is a knock against it.
The second place would be Washington D.C, South D.C is high intensity or low-intensity and the inner beltway of PG are high intensity as well as low-intensity. Virtually all of NOVA and outer PG as well as MoCo is not hood except in very small areas with less than 100,000 people in those regions across these areas. In total we are talking about less than 600,000 people living in any sort of hood.
3. is NYC, now NYC's MSA has Westchester County. Morris, Somerset, Bergen, Suffolk, Middlesex which essentially vast non-ghetto areas, that are very wealthy.
Not to mention Staten Island, Manhattan, Queens, Passaic County, Essex, Nassau, Rockland, Hudson, Union, which have tons of wealthy areas as well as some low intensity and high intensity hoods.
Newark, Northern Brooklyn, The Bronx, Paterson, Southern Queens, Hempstead, Passaic, Elizabeth, Paterson, Yonkers etcetera aren't big enough to make a difference of virtually entire counties worth of wealth.
4. is Dallas. Dallas has some sketchy areas as well as Fort Worth but the northern expanse of roughly 3 million of non-Dallas or Fort Worth suburbs essentially counters all of the South Dallas and East Fort Worth shenanigans. Plus the suburban areas of Dallas quoted as ghetto while worse than the bad parts of say NOVA is above and beyond better than any real suburban hood that you could find in Los Angeles or Houston.
Boston MSA when you exclude NH would probably tie Dallas. counting NH and not RI makes the area look safer than it is but MA has a MUCH much higher violent crime rate than NJ and CT.
In 2010 MA violent crime rate was 469 per 100k. in 2016 MA's violent crime rate is 376 per 100k falling above Georgia but below North Carolina. NJ is 277 and CT is 246. https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/
Whenever someone says Boston MSA and were including rural counties in NH and not Bristol County MA which is 20 miles form Boston i take it with more than a grain of salt. MA was higher than the national violent crime rate until 2013. MA is tied with Tennessee for having the highest share of its violent crime being Aggravated Assault (usually stabbings). Keep in mind the Boston area experiences significantly more crime than the rest of the state except for the are near Providence and the Springfield area.
Boston homicide rate was 3x that of NYC or LAs last year
MA has tremendous rate of drug addiction, assault, and rape as well as an extensive gang culture ranging from the Vice Lords to Columbia Point Dawgs to Latin Kings to Dominicans Dont Play/Trinitarios to the AZN Boys. I think you'd HAVE to exclude southern NH which is 91%+ white and not a part of Bostons fabric aside from commuters...
Minneapolis should not be on this list. While it is less blighted than average, it should not be at the top of this list.
Large cities with least blight:
Austin
Raleigh
Virginia Beach
Denver(?-not sure on this one)
Seattle
San Francisco (lots of homeless problems though, which is a different issue)
Charlotte just misses the cut, although it's pretty good in this regard too.
I was in San Francisco back in March and that once awesome city resembles a 3rd world nation now. The homelessness/tent city issue is so massive, it definitely counts towards "blight". Human poop EVERYWHERE. Human urine rusting out light poles so badly, some looked as if they could possibly fall over. Open drug use on the sidewalks. I saw 3 fist fights in front of me in one day. The most aggressive panhandlers I've ever seen in an American city (and I travel a lot!). Used needles strewn all over sidewalks and the guttering. Subway hallways littered with high people/people shooting up that you have to wade through. BART full of the mentally ill acting out. I was utterly dumbfounded! After visiting SF for decades, I will not be visiting there again. It didn't feel safe and the city government couldn't care less. So to say that SF is one of the nation's least blighted cities means you haven't been in recent years or you're totally out of touch with reality.
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.
