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.
I meant in terms of cities with at least 250k in city limits then San Juan is likely second or third, considering its previous ranking in 2019. Keep in mind, Puerto Rico was at 30/100k(1,000+) back in the early 2010s. I can only imagine how bad it was for San Juan(size of St. Louis) in the city limits and metro.
I meant in terms of cities with at least 250k in city limits then San Juan is likely second or third, considering its previous ranking in 2019. Keep in mind, Puerto Rico was at 30/100k(1,000+) back in the early 2010s. I can only imagine how bad it was for San Juan(size of St. Louis) in the city limits and metro.
Can I just ask what the hell is going on in St. Louis? I get that East St. Louis has always been bad, but why is crime that high in St. Louis? Its not as economically depressed as Detroit and its poverty rate is bad but not as bad as a lot of cities much lower on the list.
Is it gang related or just a lot of crazy individuals?
St. Louis has historically been a very dangerous city. It's regularly been the most dangerous city in America in terms of murder rate over the last 20 years, and when it wasn't number one it was usually well in the top five.
That being said, I don't have an exact answer for you. You are right that St. Louis, demographically, is doing better than some of its other Midwestern and Rust Belt peers. I decided to compare Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, and St. Louis using the Census' Quick Facts page, and here's interesting rankings:
Persons in poverty by percentage
1. Kansas City - 16.1
2. Chicago - 18.4
3. St. Louis - 21.8
4. Cleveland - 32.7
5. Detroit - 35
Median Household Income (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019
1. Chicago - $58,247
2. Kansas City - $54,194
3. St. Louis - $43,896
4. Cleveland - $30,907
5. Detroit - $30,894
Owner occupied housing rate, 2015-2019
1. Kansas City - 53.3%
2. Detroit - 47.2%
3. Chicago - 45%
4. St. Louis - 43.7
5. Cleveland - 41.6
Median value of occupied housing units, 2015-2019
1. Chicago - $258,000
2. Kansas City - $154, 600
3. St. Louis - $138,700
4. Cleveland - $69,600
5. Detroit - $49,200
Median gross rent, 2015-2019
1. Chicago - $1,112
2. Kansas City - $941
3. St. Louis - $828
4. Detroit - $824
5. Cleveland - $719
High school graduate or higher, age 25+ 2015-2019
1. Kansas City - 90%
2. St. Louis - 87.8%
3. Chicago - 85.1%
4. Detroit - 81.0%
5. Cleveland - 80.8%
Bachelor’s degree or higher, age 25+ in 2015-2019
1. Chicago - 39.5%
2. St. Louis - 36.3%
3. Kansas City - 35.2%
4. Cleveland - 17.5%
5. Detroit - 15.3%
I'm sure some people will be surprised to see St. Louis performing so well compared to resurgent cities like Detroit and Cleveland. It's the opposite side of the coin that makes St. Louis crime problem so stunningly in your face statistically speaking. This is in large part thanks to St. Louis' divorce from St. Louis County in the late 19th century that meant that the city was unable to hide any of its decline, grow its tax base, etc, in the same way certain other cities did via annexation.
I know, I know, someone already pointed out that a compact size doesn't automatically mean horrific crime, and that is very much correct. What St. Louis suffers from is the inability to "fake it until it makes it" like other cities did. St. Louis' 19th century borders mean that the carnage that has been occurring for years can't be hidden, which means you end up with economic divides so egregious that the BBC even takes notice of the Delmar Divide years prior to the events in Ferguson happening.
This means that St. Louis' problems will always be prominently displayed, especially in comparison to other cities that could hide their woes. I'll touch on that below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taggerung
KCMO has very bad 'inner city' crime. I'm not sure how it compares to STL, but I'd wager that STL is probably significantly worse.
KCMO got to do the exact opposite of what St. Louis was able to do historically, and had St. Louis been able to act in the same way it would probably have a similar reputation as KCMO today.
In 1946 KCMO had a population of approximately 434k in its 60 sq miles. St. Louis, meanwhile, had approximately 857k people in 62 sq miles in 1950 (I'm using 1950 St. Louis vs 1946 KCMO because KCMO started annexing right after WWII).
Today though? KCMO has 495k people in 315 sq miles vs St. Louis' 300k people in its original land area.
KCMO hid its inner city population decline by gobbling up its surrounding suburbs and empty land and used those areas to grow a far more suburban oriented population base vs its shrinking, Rust Belt-esque inner city. This would be similar to St. Louis taking everything within I-270 in St. Louis County. St. Louis, on paper, would be substantially safer, wealthier, and suburban, just like Kansas City. The crime in north city would still be raging though, unfixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc
Yeah, it's a city on the decline--again, it seems. Tough to see happen.
A city can't attract top businesses and top talent when gunfire is a constant threat.
I'd like to see this and other cities clean up. Gun access is part of the problem, and a much wider issue to discuss.
Again? You realize St. Louis has routinely been the most dangerous city in America over the last decade or two, right? When it wasn't number one it was almost always comfortably in the top three or five.
It was just sexier to report on crime in cities like Chicago, DC, Atlanta, and now Minneapolis as being scary and out of control, even though it was rarely comparably from a statistical standpoint. This was also all while St. Louis was getting better in other aspects.
Additionally, the Census projections still have Detroit shrinking more over the 2010s, if the population estimates are to be believed.
Last edited by PerseusVeil; 03-29-2021 at 09:03 PM..
Generally, yes! As long as you take parts of each New Mexico, Las Vegas, the SF Inner East Bay, the Central Valley, and southern LA County out of the equation (and, again, only parts!), the West is safer than the East, generally. And, sure, SF, Seattle, Portland, and maybe even Tacoma and Salem have high drug use and increasing property crime problems (though crime's still not as problematic generally as in the '80s and '90s), but there is still relatively low violent crime in those metropolises.
In fact, I believe the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West rival only parts of the upper Midwest/Great Plains and New England for overall public safety in this country.
I'll add... Of course, California, Portland and Seattle are going to third-world dystopia status, if you watch Fox News, NewsMax, or OANN...
Tacoma actually has a fairly high violent crime rate, but your point is generally well-taken. Although overall New England is still by far the safest area in the country and it's not close. Most New England states are in the top 10 in terms of violent crime, while Washington and Oregon are barely in the top 25.
Indianapolis has always been a rough town, for as far back as the late 1960's that I know of.
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.
