^I would be shocked if there were anything approaching 100,000 downtown residents in Detroit.

 

EDIT:

 

According to the Mott Foundation:

 

"...Detroit’s downtown population...is larger than previously supposed. About 74,300 residents live downtown or in neighborhoods oriented toward downtown, or 13.3 percent more than was indicated by 2006 census trend projections. Each day, 80,500 people work in downtown Detroit. And the downtown area also hosts 15 million visitors annually."

 

http://www.mott.org/publications/Mott%20Mosaic/August%202007%20v6n2/cross%20program%20August%202007.aspx

The graphic states that they included residents and workers in the downtowns.  People who are strictly speaking "visitors" are not included.

 

Visitors was probably a poor choice of words. I may be totally off on this, but I think my point is still accurate. Downtowns with large daytime populations (whether because of visitation, or in this case, workers) but sparse residential populations would appear more dangerous than cities with equal daytime populations but larger residential populations (i.e. downtowns with a greater resident to worker ratio), even if the actual number of crimes was the same because FBI statistics examine rates per 100,000 residents (not workers).

 

Example:

 

City A has a downtown of 100,000 residents and a daytime population of 500,000 (50% of residents work in downtown, so 450,000 workers live outside of the downtown area and 50,000 are both residents and workers). 5,000 crimes were reported in City A downtown last year. That's a rate of 5,000 crimes per 100,000 population.

 

City B has a downtown of 250,000 residents and a daytime population of 500,000 (50% of residents work in downtown, so 375,000 workers live outside of the downtown and 125,000 are both residents and workers). 5,000 crimes were reported in City B's downtown last year. That's a rate of 2,000 crimes per 100,000 population.

 

So despite the fact that the two cities have equal daytime populations and equal incidences of crime, City A looks far more dangerous because more people live outside of the downtown district.

 

Not sure where I'm going with this, other than I think it's an unfair comparison b/c workers & visitors likely make up at least some of the victims of those crimes, meaning it's not nearly as dangerous to residents as the crime rates might indicate in "suitcase cities". Just one more reason, in addition to what j73 mentioned above, that these kinds of comparative studies are confusing at best. 

Those stats are insane. The only way d.t Detroit could have that population is if they included a mile radius around downtown. The average American is willing to walk 1/4th of a mile from their house. I doubt most of the area they covered even has much to do with downtown. Same with Cincinnati, I believe our true downtown population is something like 5-10k. Definitely nowhere near 58k even if you include over the rhine which might as well be an extention of d.t I guess, due to how well connected it is.

You guys should reread the graphic.

I think the FBI says it best:

 

"You're not comparing apples and oranges; you're comparing watermelons and grapes," said Rob Casey, who heads the FBI section that puts out the Uniform Crime Report that provides the data for the Quitno report.

 

The FBI posted a statement on its Web site criticizing such use of its statistics.

 

"These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region," the FBI said. "Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents."...