Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this article, a hypothesis is made that attempts to provide one of many factors that have lead to the drop in homicides in D.C. and in PG County through gentrification. The claim is that the density of the housing people are living in contributes to the potential for crime. As people left the city and moved into lower density PG County, they were less likely to commit homicides because their neighborhoods were sprawling.
Could confining lower income housing to sprawling low density development help reduce crime? Could this be an answer across the nation? When I say low density by the way, I'm talking about single family homes with land, not suburban garden style apartment buildings. With a return to the city happening, could this be the wave of the future? In Europe, the city is largely wealthy and the outskirts are lower income. Could the U.S. be turning to that model?
Just to clarify, the parts of PG that low income folks have typically moved to have been a mix of garden apartments, suburban townhouse developments, and SFHs on I guess mostly 1/4 acre lots.
It would be interesting to see any studies supporting either the claim that that PG style location for low income people is more compatible with lower crime rates, or similar support for housing in the style that the OP describes.
No. One only has to look closer at european cities to see like other outside the central business distrcit its pretty much the same problems. In UK they gripe abut the bing drinkers in those areas with their violence.It comes down to as whatever turns you nwas more accepted then others do not matter;its all about you.A person doen't get to where they can beat a old lady i the head for her 5 dollars by where one lives.
Could confining lower income housing to sprawling low density development help reduce crime?
Sure. If you put them on farms where the only things they could slaughter are cows and pigs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Could this be an answer across the nation? When I say low density by the way, I'm talking about single family homes with land, not suburban garden style apartment buildings
Mississippi has the highest crime rate of any state and its problem areas are almost all low density with SFHs. The same is true of Orange Mound in Memphis and the Fifth Ward of Houston. There are neighborhoods in Houston with horses tied up in front of the houses that have historically had astronomical murder rates.
In this article, a hypothesis is made that attempts to provide one of many factors that have lead to the drop in homicides in D.C. and in PG County through gentrification. The claim is that the density of the housing people are living in contributes to the potential for crime. As people left the city and moved into lower density PG County, they were less likely to commit homicides because their neighborhoods were sprawling.
That may be a factor. But we won't know how significant a factor it is until we invent a time machine and shift all of the people living Southeast DC in 1993 into large lot suburban estates in Upper Marlboro. I think the War on Drugs has been the biggest factor.
In this article, a hypothesis is made that attempts to provide one of many factors that have
lead to the drop in homicides in D.C. and in PG County through gentrification.
That sounds like a peecee way to phrase what the real solution is: socialization.
I have no idea if this scheme being described achieves that or not...
but I'm 100% certain that any real remedy requires it as the first step.
Just to clarify, the parts of PG that low income folks have typically moved to have been a mix of garden apartments, suburban townhouse developments, and SFHs on I guess mostly 1/4 acre lots.
It would be interesting to see any studies supporting either the claim that that PG style location for low income people is more compatible with lower crime rates, or similar support for housing in the style that the OP describes.
This is true, but would crime fall even further by developing those area's and providing lower income housing in single family homes further out? Also, I'm not saying build ghetto's, I'm talking about mixed income neighborhoods similar to what is built in Montgomery county where most low income residents are mixed in with the rest of the population. Crime will never completely go away, but I think decentralizing low income residents is the main factor in fighting crime.
Sure. If you put them on farms where the only things they could slaughter are cows and pigs.
Mississippi has the highest crime rate of any state and its problem areas are almost all low density with SFHs. The same is true of Orange Mound in Memphis and the Fifth Ward of Houston. There are neighborhoods in Houston with horses tied up in front of the houses that have historically had astronomical murder rates.
Those areas in Mississippi are some of the highest concentrations of poverty anywhere. I wasn't saying to build ghettos where there are only low income residents. I meant mixed income neighborhoods like Montgomery County for instance where low income residents are dispersed throughout the county. Concentrated poverty no matter what the neighborhood is built like will always yield the same result. I think scattering low income residents throughout the suburbs will lead to the greatest drop in crime.
Those areas in Mississippi are some of the highest concentrations of poverty anywhere. I wasn't saying to build ghettos where there are only low income residents. I meant mixed income neighborhoods like Montgomery County for instance where low income residents are dispersed throughout the county. Concentrated poverty no matter what the neighborhood is built like will always yield the same result. I think scattering low income residents throughout the suburbs will lead to the greatest drop in crime.
There is evidence that keeping the percentage of poor under 10% or has a measurable positive impact on outcomes. I think thats for studies that did not address density (other than I suppose to try statistically remove it as a conflating factor with dispersal).
What I found interesting about the comment about PG, is that it indicates that lower density helps, independent of dispersal (AFAIK most of the 'receiving' areas in PG are over 20% poor)
It's a tempting theory for opponents of density like myself, but Philadelphia did it, and crime dropped. Washington D.C. did it, and crime dropped. New York didn't do it... and crime dropped more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
