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.
Ive never seen anything to indicate that DC (today) is inherently more hard knock than other cities Ive listed. And countless metrics corroborate that. Its just a different culture in regard to gun violence specifically.
Thats bc you have to know the history and the neighborhood beefs from the past. You have to be on mantime when everybody around you is ready to test you or try you. I dont know if that can be explained on paper. Yes theres jobs and opportunity on paper but theres also real hoods and poverty too.
Thats bc you have to know the history and the neighborhood beefs from the past. You have to be on mantime when everybody around you is ready to test you or try you. I dont know if that can be explained on paper. Yes theres jobs and opportunity on paper but theres also real hoods and poverty too.
It might also have to do with neighborhoods being “unstable”. There might be a lot of families moving around DC because of gentrification, and depending on the circumstances, that leads to higher crime, especially among teenagers/young adults because of disconnection. This is more a hypothesis though and I’ve read about it, but I’m not sure how much actual data there is.
South Shore and Austin are two neighborhoods in Chicago that used to be firmly black-middle class, but after a lot of projects got demolished, those areas changed a lot despite still having many middle-class home owners around. Plenty of blocks in those two neighborhoods are made up of well-maintained single family homes, and then there are sections of high-density 3-4 connected apartment blocks and that’s where a lot of crime is super concentrated, and even then a lot of these apartment buildings aren’t terrible looking, it’s just a lot of the residents there are in distress and may have moved from demolished public housing(I don’t know the exact data however). So despite those neighborhoods having plenty of more middle class areas, the homicide rates are among the worst in the city because there are plenty of low-income people who are in bad situations also living in those areas.
I think there has also always been a trend of middle and upper income black people/families living in mixed-economic areas and this is a legacy of extreme housing covenants and segregation. The Cicero race riots are a good example of the blacklash upper-income black people faced when moving to areas that were a bit more upscale. A black couple who had graduated from Fisk University, tried moving into a apartment that had been leased to them in 1951, and the apartment building was surrounded by thousands of white residents and the entire building was set on fire.
It really wasn’t until the mid-1970s that a lot of that type of aggressive segregation went away, and I think there is still a lot of vestiges of that legacy that effect where black people might want to live.
Last edited by Northeasterner1970; 04-28-2021 at 02:27 PM..
Columbus, KCMO, and Indy all come to mind- cities that are doing well on paper, but consistently have much higher than average homicide rates. Their homicides and gun violence are even worse than they look on paper when you consider that the vast majority of land area in all three cities are post war sprawlburbia.
Columbus, KCMO, and Indy all come to mind- cities that are doing well on paper, but consistently have much higher than average homicide rates. Their homicides and gun violence are even worse than they look on paper when you consider that the vast majority of land area in all three cities are post war sprawlburbia.
Yep, I would say Columbus seems to be a bit less violent than KC and Indianapolis but still. Kansas City east of Troost is in really bad shape, and it makes up a good chunk of the core. Honestly not sure what Indianapolis’ deal is though. Like there are a lot of really rough areas but many of them are gentrifying and none look like areas of Detroit, Cleveland etc. However, it also seems like some-of the more post-World War 2 areas of these cities are in rough shape as well.
Yep, I would say Columbus seems to be a bit less violent than KC and Indianapolis but still. Kansas City east of Troost is in really bad shape, and it makes up a good chunk of the core. Honestly not sure what Indianapolis’ deal is though. Like there are a lot of really rough areas but many of them are gentrifying and none look like areas of Detroit, Cleveland etc. However, it also seems like some-of the more post-World War 2 areas of these cities are in rough shape as well.
Those neighborhoods appear to be post-war construction- imo the neighborhoods in the first few minutes of the video look just as dilapidated and bleak as anything you'll see in Cleveland, Detroit, or St Louis.
It might also have to do with neighborhoods being “unstable”. There might be a lot of families moving around DC because of gentrification, and depending on the circumstances, that leads to higher crime, especially among teenagers/young adults because of disconnection. This is more a hypothesis though and I’ve read about it, but I’m not sure how much actual data there is.
South Shore and Austin are two neighborhoods in Chicago that used to be firmly black-middle class, but after a lot of projects got demolished, those areas changed a lot despite still having many middle-class home owners around. Plenty of blocks in those two neighborhoods are made up of well-maintained single family homes, and then there are sections of high-density 3-4 connected apartment blocks and that’s where a lot of crime is super concentrated, and even then a lot of these apartment buildings aren’t terrible looking, it’s just a lot of the residents there are in distress and may have moved from demolished public housing(I don’t know the exact data however). So despite those neighborhoods having plenty of more middle class areas, the homicide rates are among the worst in the city because there are plenty of low-income people who are in bad situations also living in those areas.
I think there has also always been a trend of middle and upper income black people/families living in mixed-economic areas and this is a legacy of extreme housing covenants and segregation. The Cicero race riots are a good example of the blacklash upper-income black people faced when moving to areas that were a bit more upscale. A black couple who had graduated from Fisk University, tried moving into a apartment that had been leased to them in 1951, and the apartment building was surrounded by thousands of white residents and the entire building was set on fire.
It really wasn’t until the mid-1970s that a lot of that type of aggressive segregation went away, and I think there is still a lot of vestiges of that legacy that effect where black people might want to live.
FYI, Austin was predominately white middle class until the 1970s and South Shore was too. Had a friend who grew up in South Shore as it was transitioning from white to black.
I would never bring suburbs into a conversation surrounding inner-city homicide myself. Its a totally different dynamic, socioeconomics, and criminal culture. It does this conversation no justice whatsoever. But this is what suburbanites do-include themselves and their towns in conversation regarding cities no matter what the topic is.
I don't think the whole MSA needs to be taken into account, but bringing jurisdictions adjacent to the city proper is fair game IMO.
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.