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.
Wasn't NYC the murder capital of the US in the early 90s?
It went from being the worst to the best in an impressive short period of time.
That was New Oreans and DC going back and forth with the murder rates in the 80's and 70's per 100k..... NY and Chicago and them were around the 30's in the 1990's
Atlanta used to be very bad in the 90s. It's not anywhere near perfect now, but it was much worse then. It was said that the city "cleaned itself up" for the olympics.
The city is now aiming to be "project free" and tearing all of them down.
In the 90s it had some of the most dangerous public housing units and one of the worst crime rates in the country.
Eastlake was a beast back in the day, so was Perry, Hollywood Courts, Techwood, and Carver too..I grew up not too far from Techwood and I remember hearing all the stories about the shoot outs and how the police used to call the SWAT team in because they were scared to go in there.
And Atlanta had the murder cap title twice in the 90's, but then the '96 Olympics came in and cleaned (hid) allot of that stuff up. It's amazing what a sudden, giant investment in a city can do to it. Atlanta looks totally different now than it did when I was growing up.
Throw the Most Dangerous Cities lists in the toilet because that's where crap belongs. D.C.'s average per capita murder rate in the 90's decade was 67 per 100,000. That number is most likely the highest in U.S. history for a major city in a single decade.
LA, NYC, and Chicago were terrible there is no doubt about that...but places like New Orleans, Detroit, D.C., and Oakland were were worse by percentage. I mean those were major cities that got way more media attention then the smaller and less populated cities. But the murder rate was worse. Why do people from NY and LA think that they are the worst, most hard core cities in the world? They're bad...but not as bad as some other places
LA, NYC, and Chicago were terrible there is no doubt about that...but places like New Orleans, Detroit, D.C., and Oakland were were worse by percentage. I mean those were major cities that got way more media attention then the smaller and less populated cities. But the murder rate was worse. Why do people from NY and LA think that they are the worst, most hard core cities in the world? They're bad...but not as bad as some other places
Whoever feels that way is a hood rat, straight up and down, this applies to everywhere not just LA & NYC.
But look at the size of NYC, LA, & CHI; Do you really think it was the same across the board? The whole city isn't gonna have 40 per 100,000. Some parts are gonna have 100+ per 100,000 and some parts are gonna have 20 per 100,000. You can't put a whole city under an umbrella like that by saying "Oh NYC and LA weren't that bad because of a murder rate in the 30's/40's".
I don't think any city (large or small) was any much worse or better than another city in the 90's to be quite honest.
I don't think I'll ever understand CD's crime fetish.
New Orleans and D.C. we're the worst in the 90's no doubt. That why both of them cities, especially D.C. have a "fu*k everybody else" attitude. NYC, LA, and Chicago got ALL of the attention so many people STILL think those we're the worse, when they weren't............
New Orleans and D.C. we're the worst in the 90's no doubt. That why both of them cities, especially D.C. have a "fu*k everybody else" attitude. NYC, LA, and Chicago got ALL of the attention so many people STILL think those we're the worse, when they weren't............
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infamous92
Whoever feels that way is a hood rat, straight up and down, this applies to everywhere not just LA & NYC.
But look at the size of NYC, LA, & CHI; Do you really think it was the same across the board? The whole city isn't gonna have 40 per 100,000. Some parts are gonna have 100+ per 100,000 and some parts are gonna have 20 per 100,000. You can't put a whole city under an umbrella like that by saying "Oh NYC and LA weren't that bad because of a murder rate in the 30's/40's".
I don't think any city (large or small) was any much worse or better than another city in the 90's to be quite honest.
I don't think I'll ever understand CD's crime fetish.
Whoever feels that way is a hood rat, straight up and down, this applies to everywhere not just LA & NYC.
But look at the size of NYC, LA, & CHI; Do you really think it was the same across the board? The whole city isn't gonna have 40 per 100,000. Some parts are gonna have 100+ per 100,000 and some parts are gonna have 20 per 100,000. You can't put a whole city under an umbrella like that by saying "Oh NYC and LA weren't that bad because of a murder rate in the 30's/40's".
The numbers can be broken down anyway a person wants which can make the rate higher, they can be done be Zip Code, Block, Apartment complex ect. Per capita rates are only used to put the cities on a comparable level using the percentage of murders based on a cities population.
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.
