3 ms·
I said the typical city has a rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. Lower crime cities (Boston, San Francisco) have around 10X the rate, high
by bokonist 18y ago
I said the typical city has a rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. Lower crime cities (Boston, San Francisco) have around 10X the rate, high crime cities (Baltimore, Philly, Detroit, DC) have had crime rates up to 100X.
City size has nothing to do with crime rates. City size peaked in the 1950's, a time with much lower crime rates. Philadelphia has a slightly smaller population now than in 1910. Yet the homicide rate in 1911 was 4.4 per 100,000. In 2006 it was 27.7. Likewise the homicide rate in Baltimore went from 5.8 to 43.3.
Yes, homicide rates have come down a bit off their 1990 high. But they are still nowhere near 1900 levels. Also, homicide rates understate the violence problem. The rate is partly kept down by people knowing to stay out of the city.
Finally, part of the awfulness of suburban design comes from dealing with the violence problem. Most suburbs have strong zoning laws requiring large lots and no multi-family homes. This is done explicitly to keep out the underclass.
If cities existed that combined strong law enforcement, school choice, and city-like urban design, I expect they would be extraordinarily popular. Unfortunately, such cities are nearly impossible to create in today's political climate.
- anamax 18y agoAnd I'll point out again that the 1900s comparison isn't particularly meaningful since the US had roughly the same murder rate in the 1950s that it had in the 1900s. And, as long as we're making comparisons, tn some cities, the 1960/70s murder rates weren't unprecedented either - it was a return to the Prohibition era murder rates. FWIW, it's generally believed that accurate crime stats weren't collected much before 1850 and it took a while before they became uniformly reliable. (They weren't in much of the US until the early part of the 20th century.)