Springfield #41 deadliest city. (Boston, Worcester, Cambridge: crime rate, subsidized, income)

[massnative71]

Tied with Jacksonville, FL as the 41th deadliest city in the USA.


https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mur...u-s-cities/26/


At least MA has such an educated population, and those strict gun laws to protect us all.

[GeoffD]

Fall River has the highest violent crime rate in Massachusetts. Springfield needs to step it up.


Violent crime rate per thousand population for 2018 (FBI data):
Fall River 10.1
Springfield 9.88
Holyoke 9.66
Brockton 9.04
Pittsfield 8.41
Worcester 6.82
Chelsea 6.76
New Bedford 6.34
Boston 6.22


Where is Easton?

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Tied with Jacksonville, FL as the 41th deadliest city in the USA.


https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mur...u-s-cities/26/


At least MA has such an educated population, and those strict gun laws to protect us all.

There's a strong difference in that New England cities, and a lot of older cities that saw their growth spurts in earlier eras, are generally very small in regards to their legal physical boundaries with the ones that serve as CBDs for larger reasons generally have pretty small boundaries and proportion of the population relative to the metropolitan area's population. These cities generally have a disproportionate amount of the business and commercial activity with large daytime and visiting populations who are not residents and so don't get counted in the per capita denominator as well as a disproportionate amount of low-income or subsidized housing in the region. On the other hand, a lot of cities that have had more recent growth spurts, such as Jacksonville, often have massive boundaries that include a majority of what would be considered suburbs and sometimes edge cities elsewhere. That Jackonsville with its large spread including the traditionally safe suburbs means and still having a 41st deadliest city ranking with Springfield means the rough parts of Jacksonville are really, really rough and prevalent. This jives well with my experience in regards to some of the craziest **** I've ever seen has been in various parts of Florida and I've had altercations in actual slums in developing countries.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

There's a strong difference in that New England cities, and a lot of older cities that saw their growth spurts in earlier eras, are generally very small in regards to their legal physical boundaries with the ones that serve as CBDs for larger reasons generally have pretty small boundaries and proportion of the population relative to the metropolitan area's population. These cities generally have a disproportionate amount of the business and commercial activity with large daytime and visiting populations who are not residents and so don't get counted in the per capita denominator as well as a disproportionate amount of low-income or subsidized housing in the region. On the other hand, a lot of cities that have had more recent growth spurts, such as Jacksonville, often have massive boundaries that include a majority of what would be considered suburbs and sometimes edge cities elsewhere. That Jackonsville with its large spread including the traditionally safe suburbs means that its 41st deadliest city ranking with Springfield means the rough parts of Jacksonville are really, really rough and prevalent. This jives well with my experience in regards to some of the craziest **** I've ever seen has been in various parts of Florida and I've had altercations in actual slums in developing countries.

Lets not rational thinking get in the way of agenda promotion.


Back to business:


Down with Springfield! Poor people and POC are bad!

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

These cities generally have a disproportionate amount of the business and commercial activity with large daytime and visiting populations who are not residents.

Springfield???

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Springfield???

Yea, Springfield. It’s definitely the economic and commercial center of its metropolitan area. Did you somehow not know this? Aren’t you a massachusetts native?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Yea, Springfield. It’s definitely the economic and commercial center of its metropolitan area. Did you somehow not know this? Aren’t you a massachusetts native?

Eh, not really. Latest stats show 82K jobs in a city of 155K, where 66K of its own residents are employed (as pathetic a participation rate as that is) resulting in a net gain of 16K employees from the surrounding area. This is in a metro of 388K total employees. Hardly a "hub" of economic activity.

[CaseyB]

Isn't Hartford supposed to be worse?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by CaseyB

Isn't Hartford supposed to be worse?

Yes Hartford was the only other New England city to make the list, it was higher (more deadly) than Springfield.

[jxzz]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Eh, not really. Latest stats show 82K jobs in a city of 155K, where 66K of its own residents are employed (as pathetic a participation rate as that is) resulting in a net gain of 16K employees from the surrounding area. This is in a metro of 388K total employees. Hardly a "hub" of economic activity.

Chicken and Egg question. Lack of public transportation like commuter rail, means more rural and more suburban.

Originally Posted by CaseyB

Isn't Hartford supposed to be worse?

Hartford Metro and Springfield metro both are quite rural and suburban compared to Boston metro, or even New Haven metro.

Let's be aware that only one year ago Springfield/Hartford downtown both have a "True Commuter rail" CTrail. This is not the case for Downtown Stamford/new Haven, nor Providence downtown or Boston/Cambridge urban area.