Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-03-2014, 11:12 AM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,184,687 times
Reputation: 11355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Indianapolis based upon statistics seems much rougher than its reputation as a white-collar, semi sun-belt city. I mean, last I checked it had the 13th highest rate of violent crime of a larger city in the country. And given Indianapolis is a city which merged with its county, large portions of the city are still lily-white suburbia, and presumably very safe. Meaning portions of the actual urban core must be very bad indeed.
Yeah, someone from Indy was ragging on Chicago and how dangerous it was....until someone quietly pointed out that Indianapolis has a higher murder rate than Chicago.

Rates as of today for the year:

Indianapolis: 8.3/100,000
Chicago: 5.5/100,000

Indianapolis is up 19% from last year and 71% from two years ago. Not sure what's going on there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2014, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,312 posts, read 2,168,082 times
Reputation: 946
Hands-down most overblown "dangerous" city on these forums is Chicago. Crime hotspots are very easy to avoid. I've never felt more in danger there than Milwaukee or Minneapolis or Columbus or wherever, and definitely felt more ill at ease in St Louis, Cleveland and Detroit (to keep all this in the Midwest).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,312 posts, read 2,168,082 times
Reputation: 946
And I agree, Indianapolis is certainly the most underreported via city-data crime metro in the Midwest. It's pretty seedy and rough in a lot of areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 05:52 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 2,165,926 times
Reputation: 1886
St. Louis is definitely overrated for crime. Its crime is concentrated almost entirely in the North side. It's really bad up there, but the Central Corridor and the South side are totally liveable and actually really nice in most places. People tend to think it's a hell hole and a war zone but it's really mostly alright. A lot of the problem is its Eastern neighbor's even more infamous reputation, which in that city's case is justly deserved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 06:46 PM
 
1,461 posts, read 2,108,341 times
Reputation: 1036
Guys, you would be hard pressed to find a decent sized city that is wall to wall crime ridden (or border to border or whatever). Crime being concentrated in a few areas is the norm. Some places just have a lot more of it in those areas (or slightly more throughout the city I guess).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 07:39 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 2,165,926 times
Reputation: 1886
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist View Post
Guys, you would be hard pressed to find a decent sized city that is wall to wall crime ridden (or border to border or whatever). Crime being concentrated in a few areas is the norm. Some places just have a lot more of it in those areas (or slightly more throughout the city I guess).
No city's crime will be uniform, but there are quite a few that have it more spread out than other cities, or have less severe or large but more frequent pockets of it. Correct me if I'm wrong but Baltimore seems to be an example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 09:15 PM
 
528 posts, read 866,654 times
Reputation: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_X View Post
Many cities have high crime rates and horrible raw crime statistics on paper, but which of these type of cities do you believe gets a much worse reputation than it deserves (i.e. - Maybe the crime is just confined to a few VERY VERY bad areas, with much of the rest of the city being decent or very nice.

On the other hand, what cities do you believe are more crime infested than the "statistics" suggest?? (and which cities do you believe really does have widespread crime problems over much of the city?)
This one is easy. Portland Oregon. Highest suicide rates, high homeless population, drugs/meth, lots of gangs, yet is presented so green in the media and so nice with such lovable weird citizens .

For a city that gets a real bad rap but is overall good and enjoyable, St Petersburg, Florida. And its just as "green" as they say Portland is with half the people, half the drugs, and easily half the traffic. A real gem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 09:21 PM
 
528 posts, read 866,654 times
Reputation: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70 View Post
I used to live in the New Orleans area and most of it is very safe, all the crime is concentrated in certain areas. Here in Baltimore the crime is everywhere and unavoidable. There is no place in this city where I feel safe walking at night alone or with others, and most people are afraid to use public transportation. In New Orleans that sense of danger was not as palpable. The key is that New Orleans like most cities is able to segregate its crime into specific neighborhoods while Baltimore unfortunately has crime everywhere, even in the nicest parts of the city.

Is St. Louis overhypaed for crime? It always ranks high on the national lists but I've never heard of it being a crime-ridden city at all.
Ya its probably like Tampa, has really nice gritty older pockets and working class white vibes, it would have to since Bud came out of there.. they are a beer town. Then theres the other side of the tracks but other than its bad image, I don't see St Louis as all that bad really.


Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenchild08 View Post
San Francisco is inaccurately portrayed to be a pristine city that is a playground for the rich and the liberal. This national assumption is pretty true for about a little bit more than half of the city. The remaining tucked away neighborhoods in southeast and central SF are easily some of the worst places to live in the United States. Social stratification along racial lines in SF has to be the worst in the nation. Blacks disproportionately represent the face of the extremely poor and downtrodden in SF more than any other city I can think of. Even Baltimore and DC have rich and upper middle class Blacks running the city. The predominantly Black district of Hunter's Point San Francisco is located on the most toxic waste dump in California. Non-coincidentally, Hunter's Point also has the highest infant mortality rate in California. Also, SF has one of the highest homicide rates for Blacks in the nation that is even higher than across the water in the notorious nearby Oakland, which is the fifth most dangerous city in America. Sadly, the projects in SF also have been ranked as the worst in the nation year after year. Many of these shoddy barracks built specifically for Black ship builders from the deep South during the WWII era are still standing. I think it is a little weird that the national media refuses to let the world know that what is quite possibly the roughest enclave on the West Coast is hidden away in the liberal faux-utopia perfect picture-esque jewel of the city of San Francisco.

A History of Bayview-Hunters Point, Part 2: Crime, Contamination, and Crisis | 21st Century Urban Solutions

Hunters View - not Sunnydale - ranks as S.F.'s worst complex - SFGate

S.F. more deadly than Oakland for blacks? - SFGate

Many corners of gritty SF neighborhoods like The Mission are also thoroughly unsafe and plagued with gang violence.

SF police respond to Mission gang violence surge - SFGate
It doesn't surprise me. I live in CA right now but used to live in FL but yes SF is 2 and 1/2 hrs away from me and I am scared to even step foot in there based off everything I heard and all the nonsense. SAN FRANCISCO too.. NOT Oakland. I hear how you can be in a nice hotel and turn in the wrong direction and get into more street fights or have more prostitutes groping you and what not and the homeless there is no frikken joke. I'd go to St Louis and enjoy it more than if I went into SF. SF I picture as a living nightmare. A place I wouldn't take kids into either.. even for a game. Oakland seems bad also but it doesn't shock me if SF is just a little bit dirtier. Its made to sound like its a liberal heaven since breweries are from there and lily white roller girls represent some of SF or somewhat a punk crowd, but seems like a place full of freaks if you want my honest to god opinion and SF is all so tolerant (NOT) if their black areas are some of the biggest wastelands. In places where blacks are supposedly oppressed (the south), they sure as hell do better in that part of the country than in California. Even in Sacramento, blacks don't do a whole lot or have control over their communities. This is why I suggest to anyone black in CA, GTFO and go to Atlanta. It sounds racist yes like everyone black belongs in ATL just like the fried chicken jokes, but my evidence shows me that nowhere out west is fit for anyone black, let alone a lower class white person like me. If you're a whiter black, you may make out in NorCal or Portland but those ones are just asleep most of the time anyhow on race issues.

I am originally a Boston person and I can certifiably tell everyone here that the west coast has more crime and is more crowded than the east coast overall. Count in Portland, L.A, Seattle, Anchorage, SF, San Jose, Sac, and all the little pockets and this coast is plagued with crime period. 1st chance I can I am going BACK to Florida myself. Florida was heaven compared to this cesspool known as Commiefornia.

Last edited by GoldCountry80; 06-03-2014 at 09:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 09:31 PM
 
528 posts, read 866,654 times
Reputation: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by speagles84 View Post
I'd throw Pittsburgh into this mix. Most people from other areas of the country don't view Pittsburgh as a very dangerous area. Although some of Pittsburgh's neighborhoods would be considered almost a suburb, some could be classified as extremely dangerous areas. Some even amoung the most dangerous in the nation (ex Homewood, Bedford Dwellings, East Hills, etc).
Sounds closer to Portland if you ask me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2014, 11:46 PM
 
1,461 posts, read 2,108,341 times
Reputation: 1036
Hey get back to your manifesto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top