Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 10-23-2013, 09:12 AM
 
Location: MO->MI->CA->TX->MA
7,032 posts, read 14,483,506 times
Reputation: 5580

Advertisements

Say you live in a neighborhood of 100,000 people per square mile and the crime rate (per person) is a little below average. With 100,000 people, there's bound to be crime happening all the time even if the rate is not that high. And seeing it everyday will unfairly give the perception of it being unsafe.

Is this line of reasoning logical? Many people I know perceive Manhattan to be an unsafe place to live as there's crime happening there all the time at all hours.. which is true (the crime anyways). But due to the sheer population density, the crime rate is far below the national average, which means you're less likely to be a victim than in most other places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2013, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,180,801 times
Reputation: 7875
I actually have never seen a crime in this city over the past year and a half living here. That doesn't mean that crime doesn't happen, it just means that a city this large most incidences of crime go unnoticed because it happens somewhere else due to the number of people who live here.

I did however walk past an area a woman was shot and killed a couple hours earlier. I found out that evening when watching the news.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,876 posts, read 25,146,349 times
Reputation: 19074
I don't think most people perceive Manhattan to be dangerous. A lot of times perception is exaggerated. For example, Oakland. It's not that dense. There's lots of crime. People are more put off by the crime than is really justified by the crime rate. Oakland's crime rate is 10x Cupertino or Moraga. It's more than 3x New York City as a whole. It's just not a violent city anymore. There's certain neighborhoods that are, but there's not enough of them to really bring the whole city averages up whereas with Oakland those certain neighborhoods are basically half (or more) of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,858,119 times
Reputation: 4049
Another thing that drives up crime ratings is if the neighborhood is "destination" neighborhood. For instance, Central Hollywood along Hollywood Blvd or West Hollywood have higher crime rates than other parts of Hollywood that are clearly more dangerous and crime-filled (i.e. southeast Hollywood). Same with a place like Old Town Pasadena, which has a crime rate higher than the more notoriously dangerous NW neighborhoods in the city. However these are crime rates are distorted because they are measured versus the residential population, not the (much-higher) daytime (or nighttime for nightlife areas) populations.

So yes I think that high density areas can be safer than lower-density areas. It all depends on individual circumstances though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Centre Wellington, ON
5,897 posts, read 6,102,230 times
Reputation: 3168
It also depends on what kind of destination the neighbourhood is, if it's an office district, that won't increase crime much since white collar workers don't typically commit much crime (at least not violent crime) while at work, but if there are lots of bars you'll probably have quite a bit of crime related to drunkeness, and you can probably avoid it if you're sober.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,940,440 times
Reputation: 1227
I wonder if crimes are more likely to be reported in high density areas, because more people are around? Or, is it the case that more crimes would go unreported, because it's considered more of the "norm" and/or, there are not enough police?

Either way, you would tend to see a bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Portsmouth, VA
6,509 posts, read 8,454,330 times
Reputation: 3822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragnarkar View Post
Say you live in a neighborhood of 100,000 people per square mile and the crime rate (per person) is a little below average. With 100,000 people, there's bound to be crime happening all the time even if the rate is not that high. And seeing it everyday will unfairly give the perception of it being unsafe.

Is this line of reasoning logical? Many people I know perceive Manhattan to be an unsafe place to live as there's crime happening there all the time at all hours.. which is true (the crime anyways). But due to the sheer population density, the crime rate is far below the national average, which means you're less likely to be a victim than in most other places.
It is logical but the reality is that people from low density areas that are ignorant to how high density neighborhoods work will never feel safe in them because they are uncomfortable being around so many people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,876 posts, read 25,146,349 times
Reputation: 19074
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy328 View Post
It is logical but the reality is that people from low density areas that are ignorant to how high density neighborhoods work will never feel safe in them because they are uncomfortable being around so many people.
Many people who are too ignorant to know the difference between not liking a place and feeling unsafe will continue to confuse the two as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2013, 08:28 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,485,386 times
Reputation: 15184
I've occasionally heard from people for high density places, or least not spending much time outside of big metros, the opposite: that'd they consider places remote with very few people possibly unsafe. Could true in a city, not true in the sticks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2013, 12:29 AM
 
Location: Southern California
15,080 posts, read 20,474,184 times
Reputation: 10343
Ninety-nine percent of the time, I feel safe no matter where I am.

[plus or minus one percent]
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

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