It's becoming... inhospitable...

[Hieronymous]

There is a dichotomy to what is known as St. Louis to the rest of the country. It is really two cities, with separate governments and tax bases. The non-residents think only of the downtown and surrounding area of the City of St. Louis, while the residents look at it as the whole, both the city and county.

The City of St. Louis is a relatively small geographical area with 300,000 or so residents, a large portion of whom are low income, net drains on services. Its population and tax base shrinks annually. It, like many democrat run urban cities is in a seemingly perpetual state of decline.

St. Louis County and the larger area is 2 million plus. It is as safe and nice as you will find in many cities, some north county municipalities (think Ferguson) excepted. There is a movement led by corporate interests to merge St. Louis City and St. Louis County. The upside is that this action would immediately drop St. Louis way down the most dangerous list, but the downside is that the residents of St. Louis County would be subsidizing the former City of St. Louis and its heavy load of non-income tax generating population.

This video is an infuriating reflection of the rapid decline in good governance and the inept crime/police reform seen in our city, no different likely than that seen in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc. St. Louis City too has a prosecutor (corrupt) who is declining prosecution of violent crimes, and a politically compromised leadership in its police department who are unwilling or unable to back of the rank and file.

[john c]

I don’t know much about St Louis, and have never been there.

The national murder rate per 100,000 in 2019 was 5. St Louis was 66. In 2020, the murder rate climbed to 87. Its by far the highest in the nation for a large city.

East St Louis’ 2018 murder rate was 96 per 100,000.

In aggregate, it’s the most violent big city in America.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

I never trust murder rate statistics in the US. Every city/county/state cooks the books and will list a number of actual factual murders as "death by unknown cause" for a year, until the previous year's stats are out, the quietly add those numbers back.

Many researchers won't dig super deep for their statistical numbers. The numbers provided to the FBI don't mean much, since there aren't appropriate definitions for what to report and how.

Classic example, the City of Chicago typically reports about 40% fewer homicides than actually occur, per independent researcher review of coroner numbers 12-36 months after the initial statistical release.

Point being, it is quite possible that St. Louis under reports homicides and actual number is significantly higher, but since every large city does, it's impossible to say if in aggregate it's the deadliest city in America.

[john c]

I never trust murder rate statistics in the US. Every city/county/state cooks the books and will list a number of actual factual murders as "death by unknown cause" for a year, until the previous year's stats are out, the quietly add those numbers back.

Many researchers won't dig super deep for their statistical numbers. The numbers provided to the FBI don't mean much, since there aren't appropriate definitions for what to report and how.

Classic example, the City of Chicago typically reports about 40% fewer homicides than actually occur, per independent researcher review of coroner numbers 12-36 months after the initial statistical release.

Point being, it is quite possible that St. Louis under reports homicides and actual number is significantly higher, but since every large city does, it's impossible to say if in aggregate it's the deadliest city in America.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. However, by your reckoning, St Louis would have had to cook their books yet STILL report that they’re the most dangerous big city in America. How well does that go over with the politicians? I could see the second highest reporting city to cook the books to remain that way, but the worst?

Also, in safer big cities, like Salt Lake City, and in smaller cities, the number of unattended deaths is so low that fudging isn’t possible in a way that it would be in a more violent city like Baltimore/Detroit/Chicago.

By any measure, St Louis is VERY violent, and the numbers are even worse if the numbers are cooked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. However, by your reckoning, St Louis would have had to cook their books yet STILL report that they’re the most dangerous big city in America. How well does that go over with the politicians? I could see the second highest reporting city to cook the books to remain that way, but the worst?

Also, in safer big cities, like Salt Lake City, and in smaller cities, the number of unattended deaths is so low that fudging isn’t possible in a way that it would be in a more violent city like Baltimore/Detroit/Chicago.

By any measure, St Louis is VERY violent, and the numbers are even worse if the numbers are cooked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well yes...but no.

They might be underreporting things and that would make them 'worse'.

But actually, the murder rate doesn't tell the whole story or even half of the story regarding 'most violent' and 'most dangerous' cities in the United States.

We have to evaluate murder, sexual assault, strong armed robbery, carjackings and the demographics and distribution associated with them.

For example - the number of homicides in Chicago in 2021 is currently 267, with 250 of those being shooting deaths. The City of Chicago has 2.71 million residents for a January 1 to date homicide rate of 9.85 people per 100,000. That's pretty bad overall...when we add in the additional 1194 people who have been shot since January 1, we're looking at 53.28 people per 100,000 shot.

But, in fact, that's not the case. If we look at the map (shown below), we can see that 50 of the 267 homicides occurred in 29 different neighborhoods, while the remaining 217 homicides occurred in 17 neighborhoods. Of those 17 neighborhoods, there is a population of ~660k people (659,979 according to Google and my calculator). Which puts the homicide rate at 32.88 people per 100,000 in those neighborhoods, add in the shootings, of which about 85% of the additional ~1200 people shot occur in these same neighborhoods, you're looking at a rate of 184.85 people per 100,000 shot. If you avoid these neighborhoods in Chicago, your homicide rate drops to 2.44 per 100,000 people and shooting rate to around 9.75/100,000. Suddenly, the potential for being murdered drops on a per capita basis to below the national average. How is that possible in a city with 267 homicides in the first 6-months? Easy, crime isn't randomly distributed.

My point is, per capita homicide rate and in fact crime statistics for large geographic areas, rarely tell the actual story. You have to look more closely. I have no doubt that there are areas of St. Louis that are very violent places, most urban areas in the US have areas with very high violent crime. Whether or not you'll get murdered visiting 'tourist St Louis' vs. visiting 'bad parts of St Louis' likely represent radically different statistical odds.

[mmc45414]

Also, in safer big cities, like Salt Lake City, and in smaller cities, the number of unattended deaths is so low that fudging isn’t possible in a way that it would be in a more violent city like Baltimore/Detroit/Chicago.
By any measure, St Louis is VERY violent, and the numbers are even worse if the numbers are cooked.

But actually, the murder rate doesn't tell the whole story or even half of the story regarding 'most violent' and 'most dangerous' cities in the United States.

You are both supporting what I was emphasizing, such that in some cases places (ETA: I should say "jurisdictions") have a lotta crime because they are big, and some places have high crime rates because they are small. Just a few numbers I pulled off of Wiki (that may or may not be accurate):



So St Louis has more than twice as many people crammed into a space not much bigger than my sleepy town. But Chicago has nearly four times the area and as Rob pointed out, it is not all bad. Chicago is half the size of my entire county with almost six times as many people. Indy is weird because they merged with the county, does that make their crime rate low?

But, in fact, that's not the case. If we look at the map (shown below), we can see that 50 of the 267 homicides occurred in 29 different neighborhoods, while the remaining 217 homicides occurred in 17 neighborhoods.

And nobody that doesn't live there would be likely to go into those neighborhoods.

I think this just emphasizes that you need to be aware of where you are, not just the jurisdiction. Around here the city is relatively small, but it is surrounded by suburban cities sometimes with small township buffers, and some of those suburbs and townships have some pretty zesty crime rates. But in a place like Chicago you are just going from neighborhood to neighborhood and it is all called Chicago. You can take a selfie in front of the fountain at Grant Park without body armor.

[ER_STL]

Not to belabor the point but in perhaps a similar fashion to other cities of the same size and density, STL city proper has pockets of very bad areas - most noteably the North side - that negatively affect the statistics of the entire city. Furthermore, most who have the money and means to do so move out to the safer municipalities in the surrounding STL county (which is still considered 'STL' to those who have lived their lives here), leaving the poorer segment of the population stuck to repeat the cycle. You're likely going to be fine if you stay close to the major attractions in the city but if you stray too far into the surrounding neighborhoods you'll possibly end up in gangbanger territory.

The Fox for shows, Forest Park for the zoo and museums, the fantastic Science Center and downtown for sports...that's about all that we do any more as your average family of four in the 'burbs. But we're boring like that...

[Trooper224]

There is a dichotomy to what is known as St. Louis to the rest of the country. It is really two cities, with separate governments and tax bases. The non-residents think only of the downtown and surrounding area of the City of St. Louis, while the residents look at it as the whole, both the city and county.

The City of St. Louis is a relatively small geographical area with 300,000 or so residents, a large portion of whom are low income, net drains on services. Its population and tax base shrinks annually. It, like many democrat run urban cities is in a seemingly perpetual state of decline.

St. Louis County and the larger area is 2 million plus. It is as safe and nice as you will find in many cities, some north county municipalities (think Ferguson) excepted. There is a movement led by corporate interests to merge St. Louis City and St. Louis County. The upside is that this action would immediately drop St. Louis way down the most dangerous list, but the downside is that the residents of St. Louis County would be subsidizing the former City of St. Louis and its heavy load of non-income tax generating population.

This video is an infuriating reflection of the rapid decline in good governance and the inept crime/police reform seen in our city, no different likely than that seen in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc. St. Louis City too has a prosecutor (corrupt) who is declining prosecution of violent crimes, and a politically compromised leadership in its police department who are unwilling or unable to back of the rank and file.

This is largely true of any metropolitan area I've ever lived in, not only on a country but state level also. The vast majority of the rural tax revenues go towards supporting the largely failed policies of the urban areas. In this respect STL is no different than anywhere else.