A common notion that has been challenged by recent discussions is the supposed link between public transportation, high-density population areas, and rates of crime. This conventional wisdom holds that urban environments like New York or San Francisco, known for their robust public transport systems and pedestrian-friendly landscapes, are far more prone to criminal activities compared to sprawling regions such as Memphis. However, this doesn’t stand up when confronted with the realities of crime rates across varying city demographics in the United States.
A thought-provoking article in the Federalist ignited a debate when it put forward an argument supporting suburban sprawl and challenging the so-called new urbanism. The piece argued against affordable housing and urban development, claiming it lost touch with conservative principles. Unsurprisingly, it attracted wide criticism, particularly from advocates of free-market principles who argue that extensive car-dependent suburban sprawl is an outcome of excessive regulation rather than individual free-market choices.
Beyond its economic narrative, the Federalist article also connects urban metropolitan areas to higher rates of crime and social disarray. ‘The cities worshipped by New Urbanists like New York, San Francisco, and Chicago are falling victim to rising crime rates, growing homelessness, and dilapidated infrastructure,’ it says. It accuses urban planners of exacerbating these issues by promoting high-density living, reducing vehicle usage, and creating public spaces, which, according to the article, becomes a center for social chaos.
There are two apparent assumptions within this argument: Highly populated urban cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Chicago are disproportionately disorderly; and this disorder comes from their urban planning policies promoting denser populations and fewer cars. However, these statements are mired in factual inaccuracies. When examined, it is seen that these cities, despite their population density, are actually not as dangerous as some of their less dense counterparts.
In terms of factual data, New York, the most crowded and transit-rich city in the U.S, had a murder rate of 4.3 per 100,000 citizens, which is lower than almost all other significant American cities. San Francisco had a comparatively low homicide rate of 6.1 per 100,000, falling below all but eight cities with a population exceeding 500k.
Compared to these two, and contrary to popular belief, Chicago’s crime rate was above average, with approximately 22.7 homicides per 100,000 residents. Yet there were seven cities in this classification with higher homicide rates than Chicago. Curiously, the city with the highest crime rate, Memphis, doubles Chicago’s rate but sits at the extreme end of the spectrum regarding population density and car-dependency.
Memphis, with a population density of just 2223 people per square mile, pales in comparison to Chicago, San Francisco, or New York. The density of Memphis is less than a fifth of Chicago’s, a seventh of San Francisco’s, and a tenth of New York’s. A recent study also illustrated that a mere 3% of Memphis inhabitants walked, biked, or caught the bus to work, a significantly smaller proportion than residents of the aforementioned cities. Despite these statistics, Memphis logged in an alarmingly high murder rate of over 50 per 100,000 citizens.
Conversely, even cities with lower densities, such as Atlanta, experienced a higher murder rate than Chicago. Over time, crime rates in these cities seemed to decline progressively as their populations increased, resulting in denser populations. This contradictory evidence refutes the claim that denser population leads to greater crime.
For example, New York City’s population rose from 8 to 8.8 million throughout the 2000s and 2010s. Yet, as the population grew, the city saw a simultaneous significant decline in crime rates. Similarly, San Francisco saw its population swelling from 777,000 to marginally over 870,000 in the same period. Correspondingly, the city experienced a decline in the number of murders.
In a stark comparison, both cities experienced a hike in crime rates as they became less dense and less populous during the recent pandemic. Hence, suggesting that high density and efficient public transport do not correlate to heightened crime rates. Rather, a sudden drop in population can lead to an increase in crime.
Another aspect where this criticism took hold was the issue of homelessness. Critics argue high-density cities with more walkability are plagued with higher homelessness rates. The Brookings Institution examined this premise by ranking 48 cities based on sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. The rankings reveal that though San Francisco was at the top, surprisingly, New York and Chicago featured below average on this index.
Chicago came in at 27th position, reporting 47 unsheltered homeless individuals for every 100,000 citizens. This is less than a fraction of San Francisco’s rate and even lower than some cities with lesser population densities such as Oklahoma City and Kansas City. With one position below it, New York held the 28th rank.
In essence, the misguided attempt to link high population density, dependency on public transport, and walkability to social disorder is substantially flawed given the facts. Crime rates and social disorder are complex issues influenced by numerous factors and cannot be reduced to simply the consequences of city planning strategies promoting urban density and public transportation.