St.Louis in the top 3 again
- Thread starter jesse james
- Start date
- Status
wow...this is in depth like a muthafucka.....i been livin in kansas city pretty much my whole life but i was born in flint, mi and im stay up there for a few months right now.....i can see how it ranks high in most dangerous cities......kansas city doesnt seem nearly as bad but maybe thats cuz its alot bigger
I find it hard to believe that KC isnt at least in the top 5.Theres no way cities #9 through #25 are worst then KC.KC didnt even make the top 25..wtf??I use to live in stlouis and it never seemed to be that dangerous to me.I feel safer livin' in stlouis then KC.Except for east stlouis cause its fucked up there.
All it is is an Excel file with an equation plugged in and the numbers (provided by Morgan Quitno and the U.S. Census) entered for each city, this is definitely not walking the streets of these places and looking around. Take it for what it's worth.
I suspect the reason KC isn't up there higher is quite simply, there isn't a high enough black population, as (unfortunately but this is the way it is), all of the really bad numbers that will lead to a high score in this equation are typically found in the black (or Mexican in the case of San Bernardino and a few others) neigborhoods. KC is only 30% black, that's not low by any means but it's not nearly as high as the vast majority of the cities on that list. I don't think things are any better in KCs black neighborhoods than they are in those in STL or Detroit or wherever, but it's just that those black neighborhoods take up a smaller percentage of the city. Just my speculation.
I suspect the reason KC isn't up there higher is quite simply, there isn't a high enough black population, as (unfortunately but this is the way it is), all of the really bad numbers that will lead to a high score in this equation are typically found in the black (or Mexican in the case of San Bernardino and a few others) neigborhoods. KC is only 30% black, that's not low by any means but it's not nearly as high as the vast majority of the cities on that list. I don't think things are any better in KCs black neighborhoods than they are in those in STL or Detroit or wherever, but it's just that those black neighborhoods take up a smaller percentage of the city. Just my speculation.
what you said is very true.I was thinking the same thing.The top cities on that list also have a bigger black population then other cities in america.KC has a high black population if you compare it to most cities.But not as high as the top cities on that list.In stlouis everywhere you go you have black people even in the stlouis suburbs theres a lot of black people.Stlouis has a lot of abandon buildings,brick buildings and a lot more people hang out on the corners and in the streets then KC.But that doesnt really mean that its worst then other cities.Thats just what you see livin' in stlouis.Just cause a city has more black people though doesnt mean its a dangerous city.People just stereotype stlouis as a bad city cause of the way it looks.Theres a lot more small crimes in stlouis like robberies and car jackings shit like that.Then murders and in KC its the other way around theres more murders then small crimes.
Cali ghettos are nothing like midewest ghettos??? Maybe not in terms of size as here in the bay the hood runs for a couple of miles right on into a nice neighborhood. How is richmond, california not in your top 50? That is the most depressing place i have ever been too...North richmond/irons triangle in richmond is a population of about 11,000 people in a 100,000 person city which that small neighborhood alone is responsible for 75% of california's most dangerous cities crime. The average income in irons triangle is below 10,000$. I lived in flint, michigan for a bit and beecher is considered one of the most dangerous hoods in flint and it compares nothing to richmond, the crime rate is off the hook in irons traingle. Where is saginaw on your list, i believe saginaw is the highest crime rated city in michigan...
The reason Richmond isn't on the list is probably because of A) There just isn't enough crimes in that city. irons triangle probably does have alot of bad crimes, nobody's disputin that, but obiviously the area isn't big enough to be ranked. B) It's too small to be mentioned. Dude had already stated that if he plugged in numbers from small cities like Benton Harbour, E. STL, (Saginaw would go here as hell), they pulled real high #s as well.
Also why are people gettin but hurt that they city isn't on the list. It should be an embaressment. Poverty and crime is not cool. I mean white people laugh at us arguin or somethin as stupid as which city has the higer crime rate or who's hood is the roughest (which is the underlying arguement in all this).
Also why are people gettin but hurt that they city isn't on the list. It should be an embaressment. Poverty and crime is not cool. I mean white people laugh at us arguin or somethin as stupid as which city has the higer crime rate or who's hood is the roughest (which is the underlying arguement in all this).
Also I'd like to say that when Chicago became the murder capitol of US in 04, I was glad that they never took pride in that, unlike other cities that held the title before. U know the rappers from the Chi never mentioned it in their songs (except Bump J made a reference to it once), never made the nickname outta the shit like other cities did, like's it's a medal of honor (and this is not a diss towards Detroit or Gary, but truth be told they did do that). And Chicago niggas aint one bit mad that they aren't on these lists. This kinda goes for New York as well. I never hear any NYers being mad that they are considered one of the worst.
http://www.morganquito.com/cit06pop.htm#25
Ricmond, ca is number 11 on the most dangerous list ahead of compton and san bernadino, cali's other most dangerous cities, i was just saying richmond i would think would be on his list if compton and san bernadino are considering it has a higher crime rate and less money than both. Richmond is 100,000+ people...All i was saying in response to the guys comment about midwest ghettos and cali ghettos being completely different, is that a ghetto is a ghetto there is no difference. There is shootings, drugs, rapes, thefts, poverty, etc...
That is good chicago doesn't rep that they are the murder capital of the U.S. b/c it is a shame, i know when east palo alto, ca was named it back in the early 90's it seemed as if totally insane used it as a good thing.
The guy was correct when he said that Saginaw was too small. I plugged the numbers in for Saginaw, it registered a 78.95 which would have put it as #2 behind Camden.
As for Richmond, CA, I certainly am not disputing anything you say about it. The world was taught about that when that Oregon blue chip football recruit tragically lost his life the day before he was going to leave for Eugene. World also learned about this in the Coach Carter movie.
The reason Richmond was a little lower in my index (#75 overall) was twofold: the vacant housing percentage was very very low and the poverty rate was also considerably lower than a lot of these other places.
Again these are just numbers, take them for what they are worth in your eyes. It was just an attempt on my part to find the roughest spots in the USA without ever leaving my computer. So it's obviousyl a very very incomplete study for that reason. But it is certainly good for something.
And one of the things I think it is good for, coupled with my travels, is that West Coast ghettos really are nothing like Midwest ghettos. For one thing, West Coast ghettos are a hell of a lot more racially integrated than midwest ghettos. Midwest ghettos = ALL BLACK, and unfortunately the numbers always point to the all black areas being those that struggle the most with issues of crime, education, employment and economics. Midwest ghettos are also a hell of a lot older and thus, look a hell of a lot more depressing. You don't have literally buildings crumbling in the ghettos of the West Coast, and as someone pointed out accurately, they do not take up as big a chunk of the city as they do in the Midwest.
As for Richmond, CA, I certainly am not disputing anything you say about it. The world was taught about that when that Oregon blue chip football recruit tragically lost his life the day before he was going to leave for Eugene. World also learned about this in the Coach Carter movie.
The reason Richmond was a little lower in my index (#75 overall) was twofold: the vacant housing percentage was very very low and the poverty rate was also considerably lower than a lot of these other places.
Again these are just numbers, take them for what they are worth in your eyes. It was just an attempt on my part to find the roughest spots in the USA without ever leaving my computer. So it's obviousyl a very very incomplete study for that reason. But it is certainly good for something.
And one of the things I think it is good for, coupled with my travels, is that West Coast ghettos really are nothing like Midwest ghettos. For one thing, West Coast ghettos are a hell of a lot more racially integrated than midwest ghettos. Midwest ghettos = ALL BLACK, and unfortunately the numbers always point to the all black areas being those that struggle the most with issues of crime, education, employment and economics. Midwest ghettos are also a hell of a lot older and thus, look a hell of a lot more depressing. You don't have literally buildings crumbling in the ghettos of the West Coast, and as someone pointed out accurately, they do not take up as big a chunk of the city as they do in the Midwest.
This is a good point. I'm speaking from an incredible place of privilige that I personally "study" this shit but don't have to deal with it on a daily basis. And of course you're absolutely right about it being something that should not be glorified.
I have two things to say on it however, about when it can be considered a "good" thing:
1) A city needs a certain amount of street credibility/crime/gangsterness whatever you want to call it, to develop their local rap scene into a national movement. This is what holds my city, Seattle WA back. There is a tremendous volume of outstanding underground, gangster rap in that city, but none of it ever has a chance of blowing b/c people nationally don't perceive Seattle to be a 'hard' enough place to have this hard music. I tell this to people out there, that people back East are not going to be down with gangster music from the SEA b/c they don't think it's gangster. They don't get it. So Seattle could use a little bit of say Flint's reputation as far as exporting their rap goes.
2) I want to ask D-Skrilla what he thinks about this idea: I think that one big reason why places tend to glorify/embrace the title of murder cap is basically that it is all the people have. These cities are all near the top every single year, so having a very high homicide rate is a given year to year anyway, so why not be the very "best" at something ? Seems like the people who come from these places don't have a whole lot of hope in life, so one thing that they are able to call their own is the idea of "survival," thus the title of murder cap tremendously emphasizes this idea of survival as a vital part of someones' identity. Do you feel what I'm saying as far as why it is sometimes glorified? Does it make any sense? You're from Flint, I'm not, I would like to know what you think about this theory.
I have two things to say on it however, about when it can be considered a "good" thing:
1) A city needs a certain amount of street credibility/crime/gangsterness whatever you want to call it, to develop their local rap scene into a national movement. This is what holds my city, Seattle WA back. There is a tremendous volume of outstanding underground, gangster rap in that city, but none of it ever has a chance of blowing b/c people nationally don't perceive Seattle to be a 'hard' enough place to have this hard music. I tell this to people out there, that people back East are not going to be down with gangster music from the SEA b/c they don't think it's gangster. They don't get it. So Seattle could use a little bit of say Flint's reputation as far as exporting their rap goes.
2) I want to ask D-Skrilla what he thinks about this idea: I think that one big reason why places tend to glorify/embrace the title of murder cap is basically that it is all the people have. These cities are all near the top every single year, so having a very high homicide rate is a given year to year anyway, so why not be the very "best" at something ? Seems like the people who come from these places don't have a whole lot of hope in life, so one thing that they are able to call their own is the idea of "survival," thus the title of murder cap tremendously emphasizes this idea of survival as a vital part of someones' identity. Do you feel what I'm saying as far as why it is sometimes glorified? Does it make any sense? You're from Flint, I'm not, I would like to know what you think about this theory.
- Status