December 31, 2002

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

The news isn't all bad

This year murders in Manhattan dipped to the lowest level since the 19th Century.

Posted by Jane Galt at December 31, 2002 08:58 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments

Pretty impressive, considering how much bigger NY is now than 100 years ago.

On the other hand, the medical care is much better (as has been discussed elsewhere).

And if you count 3000-odd murders at the WTC in 2001, then this year was bound to be much better.

Happy 2003, y'all.

Posted by: PJ/Maryland on December 31, 2002 01:46 PM

>> On the other hand, the medical care is much better (as has been discussed elsewhere).

All crime in NYC is down by almost 70% over the last ten years -- an amazing number.

Improved medical care hasn't reduced the numbers burglaries, robberies, assaults, auto thefts ...

Posted by: Jim Glass on December 31, 2002 02:25 PM

The decline in the last ten years just tells us that NYC was a hell-hole under the pre-Giuliani mayors. Props to him for cleaning the place up.

Posted by: Jim on December 31, 2002 04:25 PM

I don't know Manhattan very well. Is it possible that the number of stores and office buildings has increased to the point that very few people actually live in Manhattan any more and are therefore not available to be murdered at night, when, I imagine, most murders happen? A comparison of the statistics for the other boroughs should answer that question.

Posted by: Robert Speirs on January 1, 2003 10:50 AM

>> I don't know Manhattan very well. Is it possible that the number of stores and office buildings has increased to the point that very few people actually live in Manhattan any more ...

The near 70% crime drop is for the entire city, eight million people, not just Manhattan. The largest drops in the crime have been in areas where the crime rate was worst to begin with -- the bad areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc.

For the record, Manhattan's population is 2.5 million and rising (up 7% over the last 10 years). That 65,500 people per square mile.


Posted by: Jim Glass on January 1, 2003 12:20 PM

Robert has a good point. The population of Manhattan has declined from its peak of 2.3 million, which was recorded in 1910. (Here are census figures 1790-1990.)

I think the big drop was caused by the subway and trolley lines, which enabled more people to live further from work. Note how the Bronx and Queens grew exponentially at the same time; Brooklyn, just across the East River from lower Manhattan, was a significant city in its own rite from the mid-19th century.

There are a lot of stores and offices, especially in downtown and midtown. But there are also a lot of 20+ story buildings. Stores are usually confined to the ground floor (with exceptions like Macy's, which takes up its own building, tho I think it only has 6 or 8 floors.) There are lots of office towers, but there are also a fair number of residential ones, and mixed-use (in my experience, mostly older buildings downtown, though there are a few new ones).

I can remember working downtown (near Wall Street) back in the 80s, and the place was deserted on weekends. I mean really ghost-town deserted, see-an-occasional-human deserted. Now weekends are just quieter and more laid back, but there are lots of people.

Posted by: PJ/Maryland on January 1, 2003 02:00 PM

>>For the record, Manhattan's population is 2.5 million and rising (up 7% over the last 10 years). That 65,500 people per square mile.

Typo alert: Population of Manhattan is 1.5 million, the rest is correct.

And the crime statistics for NYC cover all five boroughs of eight million people, as noted before.

Posted by: Jim Glass on January 1, 2003 05:01 PM

But remember - Manhatten does not end at 110th street. That murder number includes Harlem and Washington Heights. That's why it's so incredible...

Posted by: jimbo on January 2, 2003 12:34 PM

I guess we can go ahead and credit the ban on assault weapons for this, eh?

Either that, or Rudy Guliani. I know which one I'm going with.

Posted by: David Perron on January 2, 2003 10:25 PM

Comments are Closed.