The 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in America

[Spartan]

Detroit claims the top 3, plus a few others. Michigan pulled in 50% of the top 10 and 6 overall [[Detroit 4, Saginaw and Flint 1 each).

http://money.msn.com/now/the-25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods

[michimoby]

Detroit claims the top 3, plus a few others. Michigan pulled in 50% of the top 10 and 6 overall [[Detroit 4, Saginaw and Flint 1 each).

http://money.msn.com/now/the-25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods

As with most articles on MSNBC/CNN/Free Press....ignore the comments.

I'm a bit wary of the stats here, frankly...for one, neighborhood boundaries are more folklore than anything else. And in addition, there's a ridiculously high proportion of midwestern cities on this list; perhaps that's more due to a higher population density in places like NYC and Baltimore.

This was pretty shocking: About 40% of the households [in the Ravendale/Lasalle College Park Neighborhood] have four or more cars -- more cars per household than in 96% of the country.

[subsidized]

As with most articles on MSNBC/CNN/Free Press....ignore the comments.

https://twitter.com/AvoidComments

[DetroitPlanner]

#3 is actually in Chicago, not Detroit. No Detroit's Halstead [[out in Farmington somewhere) is nowhere near 77th Street!

[Gannon]

#3 is actually in Chicago, not Detroit. No Detroit's Halstead [[out in Farmington somewhere) is nowhere near 77th Street!

Simply a database error, DP. Halstead and 77th IS the fourth entry, and is Chicago.

Third goes to Gratiot/Rosemary. You see it when you click on the intersection.

Detroit wins the top three spots, and four of the top ten.

As far as I can tell, they are not far off with this analysis, these are four neighborhoods I'd avoid in town. Easily.

[Zug]

I think with crime, 2 general sets should be used: crime per capita, and crime per area.

I do think the one used in this report is the most important...crime per capita. However, this measure can be deceiving...as it should really consider the chances of ANYONE that goes to the neighborhood of being a victim...not just base it on number of residents. Victims are not always from a neighborhood. But, of course it is difficult to know how many visitors every neighborhood has on an annual basis. I will use a small-scale hypothetical example. Let's say you have an abandoned block with one person residing on it. 5 women walking through the block are raped. It would be erroneous to say that you have a 5 to 1 chance of being raped if you live on that block. I don't think this negates the stats, though...since all neighborhoods are judged by the same criteria. Just something to keep in mind.

The stat that I never really see, that I think is nearly as important is the rate of crime per area [[i.e. crimes per square mile). Once again, a hypothetical. Let's say an apartment block in the Bronx has 1,000 people and 20 murders...that's a per capita rate of 1 for every 50 residents. Let's say a neighborhood block in Detroit has 50 residents and 2 people are murdered...that's a per capita rate of 1 for every 25 residents. The traditional per capita stat would show that Detroit is much more dangerous. So a person in the Bronx would be in a "safer" neighborhood, yet they witness 10x more murders in front of their door. Should that person in the Bronx feel "safer" simply because there are more victims for a murderer to choose from?

I don't doubt that Detroit is dangerous, and my point isn't to defend Detroit. I think Detroit will be towards the top no matter the measure. This is just something I've thought about before...and is the main reason why New York and other dense cities always appear pristine & safe.

[Bham1982]

The stat that I never really see, that I think is nearly as important is the rate of crime per area [[i.e. crimes per square mile). Once again, a hypothetical. Let's say an apartment block in the Bronx has 1,000 people and 20 murders...that's a per capita rate of 1 for every 50 residents. Let's say a neighborhood block in Detroit has 50 residents and 2 people are murdered...that's a per capita rate of 1 for every 25 residents. The traditional per capita stat would show that Detroit is much more dangerous. So a person in the Bronx would be in a "safer" neighborhood, yet they witness 10x more murders in front of their door.

Except that none of that is true. The Bronx had only six murders the first three months of this year, and covers 42 square miles. Good luck finding 42 square miles of Detroit with only six murders. Detroit is high crime any way you slice it, and relative density isn't the issue.

[michimoby]

Except that none of that is true. The Bronx had only six murders the first three months of this year, and covers 42 square miles. Good luck finding 42 square miles of Detroit with only six murders. Detroit is high crime any way you slice it, and relative density isn't the issue.

I do agree with you, BHam, but I think it does raise a question around the usage of a binary statistic such as this to compare relative crime rates.

For one, keeping accurate track of statistics around how many of these deaths are amongst residents of the neighborhood or crime that just happens to occur within the borders of that neighborhood could be a fair way to shake things out.

Additionally - and this isn't made clear in the article - there's a huge, huge variety of crime tracking systems that dilute accurate reporting. CompStat, for example, is implemented in most major cities [[but not Detroit), so the accuracy of reported crimes could be suspect in certain cities while more refined in others.

I don't know what the answer is, but I would suggest that Detroit, being a harbinger of violent crime in most of its neighborhoods, suffers the most of any major city from faulty reporting statistics and a story-hungry media.

[IrishSpartan]

It was hard to envision at one time that Gratiot & Rosemary would turn into one of the most dangerous areas in the whole damn country. I can still picture the back of St. David from the corner of Rosemary & Gratiot. Hell, at one time people at De La Salle had to be concerned with their life being threatened by an airplane crashing rather than any sort of violent crime around there. However, times change and in this case not for the better.

Simply a database error, DP. Halstead and 77th IS the fourth entry, and is Chicago.

Third goes to Gratiot/Rosemary. You see it when you click on the intersection.

Detroit wins the top three spots, and four of the top ten.

As far as I can tell, they are not far off with this analysis, these are four neighborhoods I'd avoid in town. Easily.

[Zug]

Except that none of that is true. The Bronx had only six murders the first three months of this year, and covers 42 square miles. Good luck finding 42 square miles of Detroit with only six murders. Detroit is high crime any way you slice it, and relative density isn't the issue.

That's why I said it was hypothetical......

Plus, I acknowledge that Detroit has crime, and said it would be near the top no matter what. My post really had nothing to do with saying Detroit is like NYC...I could have made up 2 locations. I'm just making the point that crime per square mile tells a person how much crime is going on around them. I'll go away from hypotheticals and give a real example...

New Orleans had 193 murders in 2012, New York had 414. Given than New York has over 8 million people, and New Orleans has only about 370,000, the crime rate [[per capita) is much much higher in New Orleans. However, if you look at NYC's land area [[302.6 sq mi) and New Orleans [[180.6) and calculate murders per square mile, NYC has 1.37 murders per sq mi and New Orleans has 1.07. So, if you are a New Yorker, you are just as likely [[and slightly more likely) to be in an area with a murder as someone that lives in New Orleans. If a murder happens on your street, I don't think people will feel better about it if there's more people around them.

[Bham1982]

However, if you look at NYC's land area [[302.6 sq mi) and New Orleans [[180.6) and calculate murders per square mile, NYC has 1.37 murders per sq mi and New Orleans has 1.07. So, if you are a New Yorker, you are just as likely [[and slightly more likely) to be in an area with a murder as someone that lives in New Orleans.

First, this is a silly metric. Per capita homicides rather than per land area homicides makes much more sense in terms of relative safety. Second, it isn't true. New Orleans has vast areas of uninhabited floodplains and the like, and it's unclear why that would have some relevance when you have a 0% chance of hanging out in a floodplain. Why would a city be "more safe" just because it has more flooding? If you want some "land area calculation of safety", you would have to compare areas with some public right-of-way or something.

[jolla]

No. 7: Detroit, Mich.
Neighborhood: Barton-McFarland
Violent crime rate [[per 1,000): 90.82
Chances of becoming a victim here [[in one year): 1 in 11

No. 3: Detroit, Mich.
Neighborhood: Between Ravendale and LaSalle College Park
Violent crime rate [[per 1,000): 123.93
Chances of becoming a victim here [[in one year): 1 in 8

No. 2: Detroit, Mich.
Neighborhood: Islandview
Violent crime rate [[per 1,000): 145.29
Chances of becoming a victim here [[in one year): 1 in 7

No. 1: Detroit, Mich.
Neighborhood: East of Barton-McFarland
Violent crime rate [[per 1,000): 149.48
Chances of becoming a victim here [[in one year): 1 in 7

I cannot imagine what it's like to live in an area with a violent crime rate that high!

[Lowell]

Well thanks MSN. Now we know where to score drugs when we're on the road.

These lists are effective ways for websites to get page views with their important ad impressions revenue. It worked with me.

[Zug]

First, this is a silly metric. Per capita homicides rather than per land area homicides makes much more sense in terms of relative safety. Second, it isn't true. New Orleans has vast areas of uninhabited floodplains and the like, and it's unclear why that would have some relevance when you have a 0% chance of hanging out in a floodplain. Why would a city be "more safe" just because it has more flooding? If you want some "land area calculation of safety", you would have to compare areas with some public right-of-way or something.

I said BOTH should be considered. I never said crime per area was better. How is knowing how concentrated crime is silly? It just gives a different context to the crime you see. Thats why people look at crime maps. Knowing spatial distribution of crimes mean something. Also, crimes don't just happen in areas with residents.

[Jimaz]

Detroit claims the top 3, plus a few others. Michigan pulled in 50% of the top 10 and 6 overall [[Detroit 4, Saginaw and Flint 1 each).

http://money.msn.com/now/the-25-most-dangerous-neighborhoods

Thanks for the interesting article but those maps are remarkably illegible. They should have at least made the street names readable. You'd think MSN would put a bit more effort into prepublication quality control.

I was surprised that no Mexican border towns made the list.

[drpoundsign]

Islandview...Slum across from Bell Isle. There was a Cop murdered there back in the Eighties and the papers did an article on it. "Abandoned homes cars and people." On the other hand it is the "Gateway to the Villages." Go Figure. I think when Hastings Street and Black Bottom were torn down the poor residents moved to areas such as these. "East of Barton Mcfarland" is Livernois/Grand River. Parts of that area had no restrictive racial covenant in the early Twentieth Century when most of the Rest of the City DID. So it is an Old African American neighborhood that has seen better times. I worked at the old Kirwood hospital on Davison east of Livernois in the early Eighties. It was rough back then, too, but most houses and apartments were occupied. Some of these areas have been bad for awhile. Islandview and Barton were affected by, or Near areas affected by the riots. The press seems to pick different hoods in different years as most dangerous [[maybe they're right.) They picked Mt Eliot/Palmer as the worst in the D a few years ago.

[BillyBBrew]

You'd think MSN would put a bit more effort into prepublication quality control.

If you click on the link that says "Get more information about this neighborhood" it will open up a readable map.

[marshamusic]

\"East of Barton Mcfarland" is Livernois/Grand River. Parts of that area had no restrictive racial covenant in the early Twentieth Century when most of the Rest of the City DID.

Do you know why there was no restrictive racial covenants in this area? Like Conant Gardens on the northeast side.

My mother did not grow up in Black Bottom, but in a neighborhood called the ABC streets - American, Bryden and Central - Tireman and Grand River.

It was a "middle class" community, probably a misnomer for the time, but..., a solid black neighborhood, they were all working folks, mostly probably Ford, like my grandfather.

The area was surrounded by whites - maybe mostly Poles, and I recently learned, reading "Arc of Justice", that it was a stronghold of the Klan. But when I was a little kid, visiting my grandfather, there were no signs of this, it was just a "colored" neighborhood.

I have wondered why there were obviously no restrictive covenants in this neighborhood. Would it have something to do with Ford?

[JenniferL]

The "most dangerous" neighborhoods in Detroit seem to change from year to year. When I was an undergrad at WSU, the Cass Corridor was widely regarded as the worst neighborhood, with the areas around the Jeffries and Brewster Projects not far behind. About ten years ago, one article I read put the area around 7 Mile and I-75 at the top of the list. There was also a neighborhood off Mack on the East Side where there was a serial killer. Any list of bad anything in Detroit usually includes Brightmoor, but not this time. I guess it depends on where the most drug dealers have decided to set up shop.

[Zacha341]

Or read the 'comments' to see what is said between the lines in some cases...

As with most articles on MSNBC/CNN/Free Press....ignore the comments.

[Gannon]

The "most dangerous" neighborhoods in Detroit seem to change from year to year. When I was an undergrad at WSU, the Cass Corridor was widely regarded as the worst neighborhood, with the areas around the Jeffries and Brewster Projects not far behind. About ten years ago, one article I read put the area around 7 Mile and I-75 at the top of the list. There was also a neighborhood off Mack on the East Side where there was a serial killer. Any list of bad anything in Detroit usually includes Brightmoor, but not this time. I guess it depends on where the most drug dealers have decided to set up shop.

It is slower than annual, but certainly the neighborhoods morph over time. There was a time when the Old Miami was an oasis of safety in the midst of ugly and dangerous grunge...now they are witnessing the rebirth of buildings long left unused all around them...and shiny new high-rises going up towards Woodward. I can remember when walking from Second and Prentis to the Miami was mostly done looking over your shoulder!

Brightmoor has had quite the focus by a few dynamic groups who share the same goal of renewing the neighborhood for working-class people.

The drug dealers go where there isn't such a positive energy input...I'd say theirs is a more passive real-estate quest.

I would love to compare and contrast the better neighborhoods with the proliferation of community and personal urban gardens. I'd bet there is some correlation.

[Eric_c]

I think it's interesting. According to the article, I live in the second most dangerous neighborhood in the country and have for ten years. If that's the case, then Detroit should be considered open for business and we should all be so thankful we live in such a stable and safe country.

If any one needs me, I'll be out edging the lawn waiting to be assaulted. After I walk to the corner for my Tim Horton's, of course.

[neavling]

I think it's interesting. According to the article, I live in the second most dangerous neighborhood in the country and have for ten years. If that's the case, then Detroit should be considered open for business and we should all be so thankful we live in such a stable and safe country.

If any one needs me, I'll be out edging the lawn waiting to be assaulted. After I walk to the corner for my Tim Horton's, of course.

I was going to say that these areas aren't all that bad. I drove around each one. The one on Mack is better looking than most neighborhoods I've seen in Detroit. The only place where I felt somewhat unsafe was Livernois and Chicago. There were a lot of people walking around, and I got a lot of eyes. But for the most part, these areas don't seem as dangerous as Chalmers and Outer Drive or Fenkell and Hubbell or Chicago and Greenfield. Just my observation, anyway.

[Det_ard]

I think it's interesting. According to the article, I live in the second most dangerous neighborhood in the country and have for ten years. If that's the case, then Detroit should be considered open for business and we should all be so thankful we live in such a stable and safe country.

If any one needs me, I'll be out edging the lawn waiting to be assaulted. After I walk to the corner for my Tim Horton's, of course.

The MSN article calls it Islandview, but the Neighborhoodscout.com site that MSN based their story on calls it Mack/Helen.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mi/detroit/mack-helen/

The borders are Mack, E Grand Blvd, Vernor and Mt. Elliott. Is that considered Islandview? What are the generally accepted boundaries of Islandview?

[marshamusic]

I think it's interesting. According to the article, I live in the second most dangerous neighborhood in the country and have for ten years. If that's the case, then Detroit should be considered open for business and we should all be so thankful we live in such a stable and safe country.

If any one needs me, I'll be out edging the lawn waiting to be assaulted. After I walk to the corner for my Tim Horton's, of course.

I hear you. I have friends that live deep in this "most dangerous" neighborhood, and I've been spend countless hours there, a peaceful, old neigborhood.