CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

I don't doubt that the "bad old days" were definitely much badder than today in many respects.

The number of annual homicides has plateaued around 500 since 2004. Before that, they were much higher since the late 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_...totals_by_year

The "crime wave" supposedly sweeping Chicago right now is in part a creation of the media, and in part a consequence of the fact that other major cities have successfully reduced crime levels to 100-year lows, while some unique factors in Chicago make that much more difficult.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't doubt that the "bad old days" were definitely much badder than today in many respects.

The "crime wave" supposedly sweeping Chicago right now is in part a creation of the media, and in part a consequence of the fact that other major cities have successfully reduced crime levels to 100-year lows, while some unique factors in Chicago make that much more difficult.

aka Indiana

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

No, this will hardly draw people to the area.

Reducing crime and the gang presence substantially will

Yes, and one the best known ways of reducing crime is to increase access to jobs. Another great way to reduce crime is by improving education, which publicly funded institutions should help foster. On the other hand, everyone could just do nothing and you would still complain.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't doubt that the "bad old days" were definitely much badder than today in many respects.

The number of annual homicides has plateaued around 500 since 2004. Before that, they were much higher since the late 1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_...totals_by_year

The "crime wave" supposedly sweeping Chicago right now is in part a creation of the media, and in part a consequence of the fact that other major cities have successfully reduced crime levels to 100-year lows, while some unique factors in Chicago make that much more difficult.

I do a lot of mining for data like this, so I'm very familiar with it. There's no doubt that crime is up since last year in most community areas (at least YTD) but even compared to 10-15 years ago, the numbers are down. The 90s were immensely worse. Everyone wants to talk about shootings too, which IMO are still bad but compared to the 90s? Not even CLOSE. Just look at the number from this July 1992 article from the Tribune. 7285 shootings thru the first SIX MONTHS of 1992. There's a lot of shootings now, but there weren't even that many shootings in the last 3 years combined in town. However, if you run the rates, it actually means that even with all the better technology of today versus 1992, that you are more likely to die in Chicago of a gunshot today than 1992. Either that, or there were tons of unreported homicides in the 90s.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...nter-shootings

I was collecting data the other day for homicides by community area in 2016 thru around end of June versus the same dates for 2015. There's 100 more homicides in 2016 in the same time period versus 2015. However - Austin, Englewood, New City, Humboldt Park, West Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, Auburn Gresham, and Gage Park combined have an increase of 85 homicides versus last year. Austin alone is +20, Englewood +13, and New City +12. Anyway, together, their populations as of 2010 were 386,612 which is only 14.3% of the city's population.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

However, if you run the rates, it actually means that even with all the better technology of today versus 1992, that you are more likely to die in Chicago of a gunshot today than 1992. Either that, or there were tons of unreported homicides in the 90s.

Well, gun technology has improved too. Tthe article touches on this, but its not surprising given the emergence of higher caliber weapons. in the 70s/80s, a lot of gun crimes were done with .22, etc. Its almost laughable that a gangbanger would be carrying something that small now.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Well, gun technology has improved too. Tthe article touches on this, but its not surprising given the emergence of higher caliber weapons. in the 70s/80s, a lot of gun crimes were done with .22, etc. Its almost laughable that a gangbanger would be carrying something that small now.

Right - very true. Point being is that yes, crimes are up compared to 2015, but compared to previous years - still lower for most areas. Lakeview for example thru 6/29 this year had 86 reported assaults. However, if you look at 2005, it was 124, which is basically a 50% decrease. Lincoln Park had 76 in 2005 versus 42 in 2016. Even in kind of so-so areas today like a Bronzeville (Grand Boulevard) - 234 assaults in the same time period in 2005 but 118 for 2016. Even if you use 2000 populations for the 2005 count and 2010 population for 2016, the rates are still much better today than even 2005 for most of these (for example, it would have been 835 per 100K in Grand Boulevard in 2005 and 538 per 100K in 2016 for assault. - for 2016 to be equal to 2005's rate, Grand Boulevard would have had to have lost over 7000 people between 2010 and today).

[TimeAgain]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Right - very true. Point being is that yes, crimes are up compared to 2015, but compared to previous years - still lower for most areas. Lakeview for example thru 6/29 this year had 86 reported assaults. However, if you look at 2005, it was 124, which is basically a 50% decrease. Lincoln Park had 76 in 2005 versus 42 in 2016. Even in kind of so-so areas today like a Bronzeville (Grand Boulevard) - 234 assaults in the same time period in 2005 but 118 for 2016. Even if you use 2000 populations for the 2005 count and 2010 population for 2016, the rates are still much better today than even 2005 for most of these (for example, it would have been 835 per 100K in Grand Boulevard in 2005 and 538 per 100K in 2016 for assault. - for 2016 to be equal to 2005's rate, Grand Boulevard would have had to have lost over 7000 people between 2010 and today).

The issue isn't the numbers, it's the trend. Yes, it's down versus years ago, but it was up in 2015, and way up this year. That's the concern. That we're sliding back.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Sure we'll try rates per 1000.
Rape (/1000 women)
Englewood CA today 1.77
Lincoln Park 1976 2.2

Robbery (/1000 pop)
Englewood CA today 8.81
Wicker Park 1976 12.52

Englewood, CA?

Also, do you have a source for this data?

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Englewood, CA?

Also, do you have a source for this data?

Community Area.

Englewood crime numbers are from the Clear map summary page by Community Area and 365 days.
http://gis.chicagopolice.org/CLEARMa.../startPage.htm
Divided by the Pop numbers on Citydata

The vintage numbers are from the study I linked to previously.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by TimeAgain

The issue isn't the numbers, it's the trend. Yes, it's down versus years ago, but it was up in 2015, and way up this year. That's the concern. That we're sliding back.

A trend is something that's been happening - in the general direction. It does not mean that every single period within the trend follows that flow (i.e. - if it's a down trend, it doesn't mean that every single period within the trend was down. The easiest example to look at is financials).

The trend for crime has been that it's mostly been going down for the last 10+ years. Having two up years doesn't mean that all of a sudden things are going to be reverted to how they were when the trend started. It's not deterministic by just stating that. The REALITY is, and the numbers support it, that though there's now been about 1.5 years for the city that have gone up, most all areas are still down regardless compared to 2005 (for example). Take Robbery as an example. Of the 77 community areas, only 4 of them have a higher number of robberies in 2016 YTD than 2005 did by over 10 incidents. About 60 of the CAs still have lower number of robberies YTD in 2016 even with the uptick in crime versus 2005.

Even look at my Grand Boulevard example from above. The amount of assaults was cut in half in that period of time. Even if it increased every single year by 5% from the previous, it would still take nearly 15 years for it to get back to 2005 levels. Let's also remember that 2012 was much worse than the small handful of years before it. Everyone was freaking out that 2012 was going to be the start of a new trend - then the next two years after that saw it even lower than the previous years.

[marothisu]

By the way, 2005 was actually a better year than the years before it. 01/01 thru 06/27:

Assault, 2003. Rate using 2000 Population
Lakeview: 143 (150 per 100K)
Lincoln Park: 104 (161 per 100K)
Near North Side: 298 (408 per 100K)
Logan Square: 301 (365 per 100K)
West Town: 360 (411 per 100K)
Englewood: 484 (1203 per 100K)

Assault, 2016 (Rate using 2010 Population)
Lakeview: 89 (94 per 100K)
Lincoln Park: 44 (68 per 100K)
Near North Side: 195 (242 per 100K)
Logan Square: 143 (194 per 100K)
West Town: 199 (244 per 100K)
Englewood: 304 (991 per 100K)

All of those places except for Near North Side lost people between 2000 and 2010 (LV and LP barely lost any people though), and even with the very recent up trend, not only are the incidents down but so are the rates even with decreasing populations (though between 2010 and 2016, most of those above have been growing except for Englewood, so the rates are probably in reality lower for all of them except for Englewood which is probably slightly higher as it is continuing to lose people).

I'd be shocked - absolutely shocked - to see something like West Town go from 244 per 100K in something like Assaults up to 411 per 100K in even 10 years (and in reality - I'd be shocked if that happened at all considering how much it has gentrified and is continuing to gentrify.). For that to happen with the 2010 population, there would have to be an increase of 68% in the amount of incidents. Not even Englewood had that type of increase from 2014 thru 6/27 or even close. The number of assaults in Englewood from 2014 to 2016 was +9.4% thru 6/27. Austin was just under +9.1%. Things might be going up in the short term, but it's still a far cry from what it was a decade ago - actually even if you go back less than a decade ago. Lakeview for example in the same date range I specified above for 2008 had 118 assaults versus 89 for 2016.

[Via Chicago]

i dont disagree with anything youre saying, but theres still a reason people arent flocking to live in north lawndale.

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Great news for Southport, a Mattress Store is rumored to be opening in an attractive building dating to 1918, that was a funeral home for many years. There are two retail spaces coming to this property, I'm hoping the developer will be able to convince Massage Envy or 7-11 to take the other spot.

The Parcel to the north will be developed into 11 residential units.

Remember, if your mattress is >8 years old, it's time to replace it!

http://southportcorridorchicago.blog...ellington.html

I'm just glad that the funeral home building on Wellington is being re-purposed for something. It was on the demolition delay list 2 years ago. If the residential conversion of the spaces above happens, that will be even better.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i dont disagree with anything youre saying, but theres still a reason people arent flocking to live in north lawndale.

Of course they wouldn't - it is still high crime even if it's down. I think people who have spent time in more dangerous neighborhoods can tell you that not everywhere is really dangerous. That doesn't matter though because of the thought that everywhere is dangerous - so it doesn't matter even if 10 square blocks of North Lawndale are actually fairly safe. Most people will automatically think it's not because the rest of the area.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Of course they wouldn't - it is still high crime even if it's down. I think people who have spent time in more dangerous neighborhoods can tell you that not everywhere is really dangerous. That doesn't matter though because of the thought that everywhere is dangerous - so it doesn't matter even if 10 square blocks of North Lawndale are actually fairly safe. Most people will automatically think it's not because the rest of the area.

if youre confined to 10 square blocks of your neighborhood, im not sure what kind of existence that constitutes either. and borders are still imaginary. while there are southern portions of Lawndale i think are somewhat attractive (little village, basically), there are plenty of other pockets i wouldnt be be caught dead in. city services as basic as streetlights are not maintained (its quite unerving rolling into one of these areas and having it be completely dark. i ask my friend why this is "oh, we've called about it for years. they do nothing and the gangbangers just shoot out the lights if theyre replaced anyway") i know some people who live in (and grew up in) these areas, and the sad reality is they drive everywhere as a precaution and wont even walk a few blocks to pick up food. its a perception and a reality even among residents. (this is a block where a cop was shot this summer). while violence may be down, it dosent feel that way if you live there.

there are also some of the most wonderful, warm hearted people you will ever meet who truly care in these neighborhoods, and its a shame their efforts get overshadowed.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Good point about the 10 square blocks being a tiny space to roam in on a daily basis. This is also why all the warm hearted people's efforts in the ghetto go totally without increasing the desirability of those areas. There are many blocks that are very safe in these dangerous neighborhoods. Many block clubs, community centers, volunteers who keep this or that street clean. However, there are also hot spots of gang related crime, open air drug markets, prostitution rings, etc that dot these areas. Since no person stays confined to any tiny space in their day to day life, people who will not tolerate passing through or by these activities will not move there. Unfortunately as far as neighborhoods go, one bad block spoils a whole bunch surrounding it since most people don't want any interaction with those types of hot spots on a daily basis.

[marothisu]

I agree - was just pointing it out. Plus some people who would live in those safe zones (and yes, they definitely exist) would still get out but in other areas. You're right, they might not walk everywhere - though in some of those types of areas there might be a little, but they also don't need to. Someone living in a perfectly fine area of South Shore might be driving a few miles north to Hyde Park for more social things (or better shopping options). The reality is that it sucks they might not walk in their own neighborhood, but driving from South Shore to Hyde Park isn't that much different than tons of people who live in various bigger suburbs like a Naperville and drive 5 miles to their grocery store.

I work with a girl in NYC who grew up in Chatham. Completely different world - she is totally into driving as that's how she grew up and doesn't live in NYC itself (NJ instead) because she wants to drive.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

However, if you run the rates, it actually means that even with all the better technology of today versus 1992, that you are more likely to die in Chicago of a gunshot today than 1992.

Yes, the percentage of gunshots that are fatal has increased - gangbangers are apparently becoming more lethal, thanks to better guns. But they're not picking up those guns as often as they did in 1992.

The number of homicides per capita has still fallen dramatically since 1990, from 3.36 homicides/1000 in 1992 down to 1.62 homicides/1000 in 2010. That's less than half as many homicides.

You're not "more likely to die of a gunshot" today than 1992, you're more likely to die only after you've been shot at. Average citizens do not face a higher risk of death, because the overall number of shootings has dropped steeply.

But, you know, math is hard. Fear mongering is easy.

Full disclosure: Because of easily available data, I am conflating overall homicides with shooting deaths. Certainly there are other ways to kill someone, although the majority of homicides continue to be shootings.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yes, the percentage of gunshots that are fatal has increased - gangbangers are apparently becoming more lethal, thanks to better guns.

HOWEVER, the number of homicides per capita has still fallen dramatically since 1990, from 3.36 homicides/1000 in 1992 down to 1.62 homicides/1000 in 2010.

You're not "more likely to die of a gunshot" today than 1992, you're more likely to die only after you've been shot at. Average citizens do not face a higher risk of death, because the overall number of shootings has dropped steeply.

But, you know, math is hard. Fear mongering is easy.

Yes, your last statement here is the biggest for me. I've been running Chicago crime numbers for the past handful of years. Crime is down a lot - even in this recent spike as I have shown in other posts. It's just funny to me how nobody in the 90s or even early 2000s was saying anything about shootings and homicides, at least nationally - but now they are even though there's a TON less shootings now versus the 90s. Still a long ways to go, but the national media almost paints a picture that things have gotten worse in Chicago instead of better. Every single crime category is down even compared to 10 years ago.

[ardecila]

^ There's definitely an aspect of this that began in the Right's attempt to smear Obama on the national news circuits. Here in Chicago, the Left was only too happy to parrot the bad news in their attempt to smear Emanuel (think Karen Lewis). Politically, lots of people find value in putting Chicago's crime rates on blast.

I think that's why Emanuel tried to get out in front of it with that feelgood "Chicagoland" CNN special a few years ago. Not a bad idea honestly. But any good will that generated was wiped out by Laquan McDonald.