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.
Both of those cities are completely out of control with their Brazilian homicides rates.
No, what those statistics reflect are the fact that St Louis and Baltimore are the two largest independent cities in the nation. Which means they’ve never had the luxury of expanding their borders to encompass areas outside the inner core. For example, St Louis’ crime stats are based on just 61 square miles of 100% inner urban environment. While most other cities cover hundreds of square miles and include huge swaths of suburban-like areas. Look at the sheer geographical size of Jacksonville. Or Oklahoma City. Or Phoenix. If Baltimore or St Louis covered that vast of an area, their crime stats would look better as well. It’s comparing apples to oranges
No, what those statistics reflect are the fact that St Louis and Baltimore are the two largest independent cities in the nation. Which means they’ve never had the luxury of expanding their borders to encompass areas outside the inner core. For example, St Louis’ crime stats are based on just 61 square miles of 100% inner urban environment.
DC has the same issue, stuck at 63 sq miles and doesn't have the same crime problems, San Francisco too, and it's just 49 square miles.
Baltimore lost 1.5% of its population in the last year vs St. Louis which lost less than 1%. Detroit's '19 estimate isn't out yet, but last year it lost 0.2%.
Baltimore's homicide rate last year of 58/100k was well ahead of Detroit's 41/100k, and higher than St. Louis at 50/100k.
St. Louis actually had 194 homicides last year which put it at 64/100k. Baltimore is the second most violent city with a population of at least 200,000. It's been St. Louis and then Baltimore as the most deadly since 2015. Both cities going through a really bad period.
DC has the same issue, stuck at 63 sq miles and doesn't have the same crime problems, San Francisco too, and it's just 49 square miles.
SF's medium household income is $96k and DC's medium house hold income is $85k.
Baltimore' sits at $51k and St. Louis is $44k Neither are even remotely economically or demographically comparable to use administrative land limits as a crime statistic "equalizer."
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity
No, what those statistics reflect are the fact that St Louis and Baltimore are the two largest independent cities in the nation. Which means they’ve never had the luxury of expanding their borders to encompass areas outside the inner core. For example, St Louis’ crime stats are based on just 61 square miles of 100% inner urban environment. While most other cities cover hundreds of square miles and include huge swaths of suburban-like areas. Look at the sheer geographical size of Jacksonville. Or Oklahoma City. Or Phoenix. If Baltimore or St Louis covered that vast of an area, their crime stats would look better as well. It’s comparing apples to oranges
Baltimore is 4/10th the size of Chicago (1.1 million people in 228 sq miles vs. Chicago's 2.7 million).
Baltimore had 398 murders in that land area in 2019 which would drop the cities crime rate from it's ridiculous 57/100k to a more digestible 36/100k (which is still horrible). I'm sure St. Louis rates would fall just as significantly even w/ East St. Louis
Moral of the story, we should take murder rate in any city with a grain of salt.
No, what those statistics reflect are the fact that St Louis and Baltimore are the two largest independent cities in the nation. Which means they’ve never had the luxury of expanding their borders to encompass areas outside the inner core. For example, St Louis’ crime stats are based on just 61 square miles of 100% inner urban environment. While most other cities cover hundreds of square miles and include huge swaths of suburban-like areas. Look at the sheer geographical size of Jacksonville. Or Oklahoma City. Or Phoenix. If Baltimore or St Louis covered that vast of an area, their crime stats would look better as well. It’s comparing apples to oranges
Yeah I understand that. Baltimore and St Louis still have some of the most crime ridden areas in the entire nation. I would say at least a third of St Louis by land area is unlivably violent. Do OKC or Phoenix or Jacksonville have any neighborhood as bad as the Greater Ville or Walnut Park?
Last edited by Taggerung; 04-13-2020 at 10:39 AM..
Cities vary so widely in size, density, and other important factors. A far more fair basis for comparison is that of MSA’s. Because MSA stats give a much clearer picture of what our vast urban areas are truly like. Comparing 60 square miles of one urban area to 800 square miles of another urban area is completely useless.
Cities vary so widely in size, density, and other important factors. A far more fair basis for comparison is that of MSA’s. Because MSA stats give a much clearer picture of what our vast urban areas are truly like. Comparing 60 square miles of one urban area to 800 square miles of another urban area is completely useless.
Yet those same factors you listed can be applied to MSAs.
Yet those same factors you listed can be applied to MSAs.
You’re missing the point. You get a far clearer picture of a city when considering its entire urban area. Focusing on just a percentage of the whole is pointless when you have a much larger base to use. One could just as blindly focus on a portion of an urban area that has low crime, and then conclude that the city is safe. Using a larger available base from which to draw statistics makes so much more sense—unless you’re trying to skew those statistics for your own agenda.
SF's medium household income is $96k and DC's medium house hold income is $85k.
Baltimore' sits at $51k and St. Louis is $44k Neither are even remotely economically or demographically comparable to use administrative land limits as a crime statistic "equalizer."
Minneapolis and Seattle have the same issue. The difference is their economies are much stronger. High crime in Baltimore and St. Louis has nothing to do with inability to annex suburbs, but lack of opportunity in the cities themselves.
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.
