What city (besides Chicago) would benefit/prosper the most from getting its crime under control (places, population)
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 picked Atlanta since I'm familiar with it, and I feel like the two things holding it back from reaching its full potential are the traffic/lack of transportation options and the crime. Maybe it is already fairly prosperous despite those issues and not as blighted compared to Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, etc. hence why cities like those are better choices for this particular poll.
Yes crime in Atlanta is getting ridiculous lately but it still doesn’t compare to some of these cities on this list, especially those that you mentioned. Google and Microsoft setting up new huge operations here obviously mean crime isn’t affecting Atlanta yet.
But I did see an article today in the local news that is reporting the State of GA legislature may get involved with decreasing crime in the city. I have never heard of a state legislature doing that before so that speaks volumes. They need to get it under control before it does indeed start to scare away businesses and residents.
Chicago's problem is not its crime (that would be high taxes and lack of blue collar job opportunities). Quite frankly, its supposed crime wave is overrated, as the city doesn't even make it into the top 30 most dangerous cities in America list:
Correct, but the crime hype scares away tons of people from even thinking of moving to Chicago, so it could definitely benefit from a crime decrease and a more positive city image. Much like NY and LA have lowered their crime and now are not seen as crime infested cities (like they once were)
Correct, but the crime hype scares away tons of people from even thinking of moving to Chicago, so it could definitely benefit from a crime decrease and a more positive city image. Much like NY and LA have lowered their crime and now are not seen as crime infested cities (like they once were)
I've talked to a surprising amount of people who still think you can get shot walking down the street in Manhattan (in broad daylight!). So while I agree that the perception certainly isn't as bad as it used to be, I do think the popular perception of a place tends to lag by about 20-30 years.
If Chicago were to drastically reduce its crime in the next decade, I suspect people would still call it "Chiraq" for another 20 years past that. But maybe, if we're on our best behavior, people will start to think positively of us in 2050
I've talked to a surprising amount of people who still think you can get shot walking down the street in Manhattan (in broad daylight!). So while I agree that the perception certainly isn't as bad as it used to be, I do think the popular perception of a place tends to lag by about 20-30 years.
If Chicago were to drastically reduce its crime in the next decade, I suspect people would still call it "Chiraq" for another 20 years past that. But maybe, if we're on our best behavior, people will start to think positively of us in 2050
People never let go of things like this. Consider this: the Cuyahoga River fire was in 1969. That is 52 years ago.
No, it is not. It's a hinderance. If going by that logic, Newark, NJ would prosper far more than Baltimore. Its location already makes it a much better city than Baltimore.
Baltimore hinders Baltimore, not it’s location.
...Baltimore’s current shortcomings and image are not because DC is currently booming 40 miles down the road. Does it complicate geopolitics, sure but that’s as far that olive branch reaches.
I disagree completely. Through a process of elimination:
Eliminate: Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Milwaukee: No rustbelt city should be on this list. The problems they face(d) are far beyond crime rates and that's not what is holding them back. These places need to reinvent themselves entirely. Lower crime doesn't cancel out decades of disinvestment. Atlanta, DC, and Philly: already prosperous even if they do have areas of significant poverty. Really don't see them getting more prosperous. DC is arguably the 2nd wealthiest region per capita and one of the wealthiest major cities in the country. Not even sure why that's an option. Memphis, Birmingham, New Orleans, Hartford: Economic doldrums. Need a kickstart or major investment, otherwise they simply don't have the ecosystems and critical industry mass to compete with other cities in their respective region. Memphis does have a thing going w/ logistics...
Contenders: Indianapolis, Kansas City: These cities already have steady (and increasing) growth potential. I could see a major urban infill boom, especially in KC which has really good bones. I think these places are on the upward track regardless of crime, so I'm not sure it would make as much a difference.
Winner: Baltimore:How can it not be Baltimore? The region is impressively strong economically, the infrastructure and ecosystems are in place for it to prosper, but yet...people and businesses stay away because the crime is so high. If crime dropped in Baltimore, there would be a massive flood of newcomers and investment from regions they were priced out of. The unknown and potentially significant variable, however, is the city's corruption. But honestly, crime is a huge part of why the City of Baltimore languishes while the region continues to flourish.
...Baltimore’s current shortcomings and image are not because DC is currently booming 40 miles down the road. Does it complicate geopolitics, sure but that’s as far that olive branch reaches.
Its location, crime, geopolitics hinder it. And, yes, you're right..Baltimore hinders Baltimore.
I disagree completely. Through a process of elimination:
Eliminate: Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Milwaukee: No rustbelt city should be on this list. The problems they face(d) are far beyond crime rates and that's not what is holding them back. These places need to reinvent themselves entirely. Lower crime doesn't cancel out decades of disinvestment. Atlanta, DC, and Philly: already prosperous even if they do have areas of significant poverty. Really don't see them getting more prosperous. DC is arguably the 2nd wealthiest region per capita and one of the wealthiest major cities in the country. Not even sure why that's an option. Memphis, Birmingham, New Orleans, Hartford: Economic doldrums. Need a kickstart or major investment, otherwise they simply don't have the ecosystems and critical industry mass to compete with other cities in their respective region. Memphis does have a thing going w/ logistics...
Contenders: Indianapolis, Kansas City: These cities already have steady (and increasing) growth potential. I could see a major urban infill boom, especially in KC which has really good bones. I think these places are on the upward track regardless of crime, so I'm not sure it would make as much a difference.
Winner: Baltimore:How can it not be Baltimore? The region is impressively strong economically, the infrastructure and ecosystems are in place for it to prosper, but yet...people and businesses stay away because the crime is so high. If crime dropped in Baltimore, there would be a massive flood of newcomers and investment from regions they were priced out of. The unknown and potentially significant variable, however, is the city's corruption. But honestly, crime is a huge part of why the City of Baltimore languishes while the region continues to flourish.
Milwaukee is actually in pretty good shape economically. It’s not typical rust belt.
It’s biggest problem could very well be crime but also they need to figure out a way to convince people that winters aren’t that big a deal because they’re not.
People and businesses avoid Memphis because of crime. It has a distinct geographical advantage over most of the others. Kind of sunbelty and in a popular state for relocation. People like the hills in the east, but they also like low taxes and cheap houses which Memphis can provide just as well.
Baltimore is more of a chicken or the egg scenario: either gentrification can tone down the crime or crime keeps progress from happening. I could see it going the other way in spite of its crime given enough time.
Memphis, not so much. Making it safer should be job 1 there.
Kansas City could improve but does reasonably well in spite of its crime. It, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati are the ones I wouldn’t worry too much about on this list.
I don't know if that will cause some quality of life concerns. I'm not a fan of that proposal.
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.
