> The typical American city now has a homicide rate 10X to 100X that of a Victorian era European city. That's not a typo, 1990's DC had a homicide rate 100X that of London in 1900.
No, it's not a typo, it's an error. DC is not a typical American city and it takes a considerable amount of ignorance (or ?) to claim that it is.
The comparison with the Victorian era is somewhat odd.
DC's crime rate in the 90s was considerably higher than it is now or than it was in the Victorian era. DC was proportionally less populated during the Victorian era than it was in the 90s. (It may have become somewhat smaller since the 90s.)
Yes, US cities became more violent as they grew relative to suburbs and small towns. The big increases in violence happened in the 60s, when the cities were still growing. The shrinkage, where it has occurred, is very recent, since the mid 90s (and violence started dropping soon after).
That said, violence in American cities that have significant violence is highly localized in areas populated by people who, for the most part, can't afford to move out. (That's not to say that folks don't move because of a fear of violence.)
Note that folks who leave cities don't have to move to suburbs. They can move to small towns. They don't. (Suburb isn't a "size", it's a kind of community design. Big cities used to be surrounded by little cities. Those cities were turned into suburbs by folks who prefered that.)
In fact, small towns lost population to suburbs and cities.
FWIW, DC's peak murder rate was less than 1/4th of the murder rate of East Palo Alto during the same time. EPA is a suburb which borders Palo Alto (CA) and Menlo Park. Those two suburbs have a murder between them every 5-7 years. (EPA's murder rate has dropped a lot since its peak and may be under DC's now.)
A trick I picked up from Moldbug is to try to look at our times through the eyes of someone living 100 years ago or 100 years in the future. It gives you perspective and helps you escape the narrow view of people immersed in our present squabbles and concerns.
I think the fact that someone living 100 years ago would view our times as unspeakably violent is an interesting fact (and that is even including a drop in crime in most places since the 70s).
While it's an interesting idea, in this case it isn't clear what the value is as the typical risk of violence hasn't changed significantly.
The numbers are such that changes in tiny subpopulations have a big effect on the averages. US cities are not "unspeakably violent" - certain blocks or buildings are.
FWIW, the murder drop didn't start until the mid 90s.
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.
And 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.)
No, it's not a typo, it's an error. DC is not a typical American city and it takes a considerable amount of ignorance (or ?) to claim that it is.
The comparison with the Victorian era is somewhat odd. DC's crime rate in the 90s was considerably higher than it is now or than it was in the Victorian era. DC was proportionally less populated during the Victorian era than it was in the 90s. (It may have become somewhat smaller since the 90s.)
Yes, US cities became more violent as they grew relative to suburbs and small towns. The big increases in violence happened in the 60s, when the cities were still growing. The shrinkage, where it has occurred, is very recent, since the mid 90s (and violence started dropping soon after).
That said, violence in American cities that have significant violence is highly localized in areas populated by people who, for the most part, can't afford to move out. (That's not to say that folks don't move because of a fear of violence.)
Note that folks who leave cities don't have to move to suburbs. They can move to small towns. They don't. (Suburb isn't a "size", it's a kind of community design. Big cities used to be surrounded by little cities. Those cities were turned into suburbs by folks who prefered that.)
In fact, small towns lost population to suburbs and cities.
FWIW, DC's peak murder rate was less than 1/4th of the murder rate of East Palo Alto during the same time. EPA is a suburb which borders Palo Alto (CA) and Menlo Park. Those two suburbs have a murder between them every 5-7 years. (EPA's murder rate has dropped a lot since its peak and may be under DC's now.)