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.
Micropolitan can be included as well. All you have to do is lower the population from 50,000 vs 50,000 to 10,000 vs 10,000 or 20,000 vs 20,000 etc. A lot of big cities break their crime down to the level of borough, neighborhood, ward, police district, police beats, census tract, etc. You can use these breakdowns to compare to smaller cities.
Notice for metropolitan cities (50K +) , generally speaking, that you can find data for specific breakdowns. In case of micropolitan cities, you don't have that same specifics to the metros. At best you would get different sections of the city (ex: Northside, Southside, or Political Wards but those boundar9can cross different sections of a city) . Yet to home into a specific community or neighborhood blocks , not really.
Notice for metropolitan cities (50K +) , generally speaking, that you can find data for specific breakdowns. In case of micropolitan cities, you don't have that same specifics to the metros. At best you would get different sections of the city (ex: Northside, Southside, or Political Wards but those boundar9can cross different sections of a city) . Yet to home into a specific community or neighborhood blocks , not really.
Once you break the metropolitan city down, at that point there is no need to breakdown the cities below 50,000 because the whole point is to compare areas with similar populations. For example, East St. Louis, IL has about 25,000 people so I would just leave it as is and compare it to Englewood, Chicago which also has about 25,000 people. I wouldn't need to break it down because it already has a similar population.
Once you break the metropolitan city down, at that point there is no need to breakdown the cities below 50,000 because the whole point is to compare areas with similar populations. For example, East St. Louis, IL has about 25,000 people so I would just leave it as is and compare it to Englewood, Chicago which also has about 25,000 people. I wouldn't need to break it down because it already has a similar population.
That's incomparable actually since your comparing an entire city to a single neighborhood in your example. That boomerang your previous statememt of comparing 2 cities with a hugh gap in population. Sure enough the population is similar but the rough areas are strikingly different in both cases in your example. A rough neighborhood such as Englewood will have to be compared to a rough neighborhood in East St Louis .
Washington DC was VERY bad in the 1990s, on the level of where Detroit and Chicago are today. A lot of the violent crime has since been pushed into the Maryland suburbs particularly Prince George's County. I think at one point DC had one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
Los Angeles definitely especially as that was when the Rodney King riots took place. Gang violence was extremely intense during that period of time as well.
Washington DC was VERY bad in the 1990s, on the level of where Detroit and Chicago are today. A lot of the violent crime has since been pushed into the Maryland suburbs particularly Prince George's County. I think at one point DC had one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
Los Angeles definitely especially as that was when the Rodney King riots took place. Gang violence was extremely intense during that period of time as well.
Several things here. Detroit and Chicago were worst in the 90's compared to today. DC and New Orleans had significantly higher rates than any major cities in the 90's (Richmond, VA 1). DC led the nation in murder rates 7 times in the 90's until NO eventually took off while DC started to decrease. DC also had almost 5 consecutive years of 400+ homicides.
Last edited by boreatwork; 07-10-2017 at 05:29 PM..
Though Boston didn't have nearly as high of a murder rate as Washington DC and New Orleans during the 1990s. Boston also did suffer from record high amounts of violence too during this period with a 1990 record of 153 homicides occurring that year with a population around 570,000 or so. There was pretty severe urban decay in parts of Jamaica Plain, Parts of the South End, Dorchester, Mattapan, and South Boston.
Crime plummeted though during the "Boston Miracle" in the late 1990s sending the amount of homicides to around 30-40 record low around 1998-1999 or so. The program called operation ceasefire ended after a few years and crime rates started to rise in the 2000s reaching a 2010 high of 72 homicides before starting to decrease again in recent years though it still hasn't reached it's late 1990s low.
I wonder how much of an impact property crimes (specifically auto thefts and certain types of burglary) influence the perception of what makes a city "dangerous"? Looking at data from ucr.fbi concerning crime rates during the 90s, the city of Newark stood out at the top when it comes to car thefts, with a rate of 4,000-5,000/100k annually. I read an article where it said that 40 cars on average were being stolen in 24 hours in that city. My own hometown of Harvey had the highest car theft rate in Illinois and in the top 3 of the country from 1991 to 1993/1994 minimally. For major cities, San Francisco had a higher property crime rate than cities like Chicago and Los Angeles. I wonder if people in San Francisco during that era felt like they were living in an unsafe city, with the influence of valuable possessions being stolen or breaking into being a main contributor.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 07-12-2017 at 12:01 PM..
Several things here. Detroit and Chicago were worst in the 90's compared to today. DC and New Orleans had significantly higher rates than any major cities in the 90's (Richmond, VA 1). DC led the nation in murder rates 7 times in the 90's until NO eventually took off while DC started to decrease. DC also had almost 5 consecutive years of 400+ homicides.
D.C.'s average annual murder rate over 10 years (data from 1988-1997) was an all-time bunkers 70.8 per 100k as far major cities. No major city has actually approached that number over 10 years, not even New Orleans.
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.
boredatwork
My own hometown of Harvey had the highest car theft rate in Illinois and in the top 3 of the country from 1991 to 1993/1994 minimally. For major cities, San Francisco had a higher property crime rate than cities like Chicago and Los Angeles. I wonder if people in San Francisco during that era felt like they were living in an unsafe city, with the influence of valuable possessions being stolen or breaking into being a main contributor.
