How would you rate your state capital?

[Takumi]

I think many people in Virginia, especially the southwestern portion, would disagree with you.  I certainly do. I was at a press conference with a Virginia state trooper from Wise, and he was complaining about how far it is to Richmond and how long it takes to get there. He was noting how he's closer to Frankfort and Charleston, and maybe even Nashville or Raleigh, than he is Richmond.

where would you put the capital?  Virginia is oddly shaped, with its spur to the southwest.  further to the south would cause it to move away from the population centers that define its being the south end of the northern megaplex.  further north or east and it would alienate the west of the state even more. 

further west is the only choice that would have some merit, but I happen to disagree.  Lynchburg may be a bit more geographically logical, but then you'd get people from the populated northern and eastern part of Virginia (which would now include Richmond) complaining.

Lynchburg may have made sense geographically if WV had not broken away in 1862.

Farmville's closer, but too small and would be too prone to jokes. The geographic center of Virginia is in Buckingham County, which is the middle of nowhere. There's enough room that a new capital could be built from the ground up a la Burma.* I'd rate Richmond a 5 on the location scale since it's more cenral from a population standpoint than a geographic one. I'm still thinking about most of the other categories.

*please don't take this suggestion seriously

[corco]

The geographic center of Virginia is in Buckingham County, which is the middle of nowhere. There's enough room that a new capital could be built from the ground up a la Burma.*

I finally have found my purpose in life. I'm moving to Virginia this evening and will commence this operation.

[briantroutman]

SACRAMENTO

• Location (5 points) - The northerly location might have made sense when much of the state's population was comprised of grizzled old prospectors, but now the center of population is some 250 miles to the south. The city is connected to the state's major population centers via mostly direct freeway connections, but its remoteness disconnects it from much of the state both physically and culturally. If states were ranked by the percentage of residents who have visited the state capital, I would guess California would be at or near the bottom.
• Aesthetics (5 points) - California has a handsome neoclassical capitol building (as do many states) and some interesting individual sites like the Crocker Art Museum, Ziggurat Building, and the Tower Bridge, but as a whole, the clashing architectural styles and "gratuitous palm trees meet generic middle-America town"  appearance come across as disjointed.
• Opportunities (4 points) - For about a decade, Sacramento's unemployment rate has been above the both the national and state averages, and it now stands at nearly double that of San Francisco. Sacramento suffers from the same high taxes and generally anti-business climate of the rest of the state but lacks much of the innovation incubators, natural beauty, and cultural attractions that still draw people to the Bay Area and Southern California.
• Significance (4 points) - The city figures prominently in much of the state's early history but has become less relevant in all regards as the 19th century gave way to the 20th.
• Safety (9 points) - Murder rates are a little higher than the national average, but property crimes and assaults are about double.


• Vacant Properties (5 points) - The housing bubble has hit much of the Central Valley harder than most the U.S., although Sacramento isn't in quite the terrible shape Modesto, Stockton, or Fresno are.
• Crime (4 points) -


• Violent Crime - (2 points) -
• Property Crime - (2 points) -
• Public Perception (6 points) - Split decision–Among Californians, it's a boring town in the middle of nowhere. Among people who don't know anything about California: "Ooh...it's California."
• Landmarks (5 points) - There's the state capitol, some museums, and Old Sacramento, but I wouldn't rate the city particularly high on landmarks.
• Family-Friendliness (5 points) - There are parks, museums, sporting events, and recreation activities on the river, and housing costs are well below the state average, making the city a little more livable in some regards. But it's not the most kid-friendly place...
• Future (4 points) - See "Opportunities"  above.

TOTAL: 47 points

[oscar]

SACRAMENTO

...

• Family-Friendliness (5 points) - There are parks, museums, sporting events, and recreation activities on the river, and housing costs are well below the state average, making the city a little more livable in some regards. But it's not the most kid-friendly place...

When I spent the summer there as a student in 1979, we called Sacramento "a nice place to raise a family".  That was not intended as a compliment. 

My guess is that the city has become a bit livelier in the past 35 years.

[vdeane]

I'll let someone else take Albany, but whoever does should factor in Albany being the oldest continuously chartered city in North America.

[hotdogPi]

Safety (8 points) - Murder rates are a little higher than the national average, but property crimes and assaults are about double.

Vacant Properties (5 points) - The housing bubble has hit much of the Central Valley harder than most the U.S., although Sacramento isn't in quite the terrible shape Modesto, Stockton, or Fresno are.

Crime (4 points)

4+5=8?

[briantroutman]

4+5=8?

Whoops. I bumped the Vacant Properties rating from 4 to 5 and updated the total at the bottom but not the "Safety"  subtotal above. It's fixed now.

[hbelkins]

I think many people in Virginia, especially the southwestern portion, would disagree with you.  I certainly do. I was at a press conference with a Virginia state trooper from Wise, and he was complaining about how far it is to Richmond and how long it takes to get there. He was noting how he's closer to Frankfort and Charleston, and maybe even Nashville or Raleigh, than he is Richmond.

where would you put the capital?  Virginia is oddly shaped, with its spur to the southwest.  further to the south would cause it to move away from the population centers that define its being the south end of the northern megaplex.  further north or east and it would alienate the west of the state even more. 

further west is the only choice that would have some merit, but I happen to disagree.  Lynchburg may be a bit more geographically logical, but then you'd get people from the populated northern and eastern part of Virginia (which would now include Richmond) complaining.

I guess some would make the same argument for Topeka, even though geographically Salina would probably make more sense. Salina would be too far from Kansas City or Lawrence.

■Violent Crime - (0-5 points) - 1.  Along with nearby Huntington, bombed out by meth and crack addicts.
■Property Crime - (0-5 points) - 2.  Only the core downtown during daylight hours, and the middle class Kanawha City and ultra-rich South Hills sections are safe.  Rest of town is a place you do not go.

Charleston never struck me as an unsafe place. Of course I have not really been off the numbered routes (60, 119, 21, 61, 25, 114, 601, etc.) but I never really felt uneasy anywhere -- unlike some sections of Louisville and Cincinnati I've been in.

I guess I see Charleston as being one big area with South Charleston, Dunbar, Institute, St. Albans, etc. included, and the main drag (US 60) through St. Albans appeared more seedy to me than anyplace I've been in Charleston proper.

[Zeffy]

Apparently, Trenton is an exciting place according to a list published by Movoto.com.

http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/most-exciting-places-in-new-jersey/

I will give it props for mentioning all the reenactments that Trenton does, as well as mentioning a fine Jersey product known as Pork Roll.. yummy! But it got a high nightlife rating? The city turns into a ghost-town past dark, and noone should be out there.

Anyway, onto the lists. Trenton's score has been combined into one from My and SteveG1988's scores by averaging the scores.

Worst (Currently):
1. Charleston, WV - 32
2. (tie) Harrisburg, PA - 48
2. (tie) Sacramento, CA - 48
3. (tie) Springfield, IL - 54
3. (tie) Trenton, NJ - 54 [57, 51] 
4. Providence, RI - 62 points
5. Hartford, CT - 64 points

Best (Currently):
1. Honolulu, HI - 93 points
2. Montpelier, VT - 92 points
3. Boise, ID - 91 points
4. Annapolis, MD - 86 points
5. Boston, MA - 78 points

This result was obtained from multiple entries about the same city. The numbers in the [brackets] are the original final scores.

Not bad! More entries are always welcome, and remember, just because someone posted one for your capital, doesn't mean you cannot as well!

[Alps]

ALBANY

• Location: 9 - Given NY's crazy shape, Albany does a great job of being connected to just about all of it. The one quibble is that it's a bit off the beaten path for most travelers, but moving it farther south would put it farther from the Northern Tier.
• Aesthetics: 3 - The Egg is about all Albany has going for it. It's otherwise unremarkable in about every aspect, though the skyline has a couple of reasonably good views.
• Opportunities: 6 - Upstate NY in general is opportunity-poor, but Albany is definitely better off than Syracuse, Rochester, or Buffalo. This may be at least in part due to being the state capital.
• Significance: 9 - At the crook of the Erie Canal, the railroad that replaced it, and the Thruway that replaced the railroad in turn, as well as the junction of just about every direction (north to Montreal, east to Boston, west to Ohio and beyond, southwest to Pennsylvania and beyond, south to New York). One of many stopping points along Indian and military trails used during the French and Indian, Revolutionary, and other early wars. The only reason it's not a 10 is that most historical events happened a few to several dozen miles away.
• Safety: 14
• Vacant Properties: 8 - Mostly alright, though there are some abandoned warehouses and factories very close to downtown, which is not cool. They may be gentrifying, though.
• Crime: 6


• Violent Crime: 3 - Depends where you are. Not especially notable for it, but that's because the city tends to die at late hours. I was going to give a 4, but I wouldn't walk around many neighborhoods at night.
• Property Crime: 3 - About the same boat as violent crime.
• Public Perception: 3 - To most people, Albany is a waypoint between NYC and Montreal. To those in the Hudson Valley and below, it's way up there in the nebulous "Upstate". Otherwise, it's in the "Capital Region," which describes something approximating Albany and Washington County. New Yorkers know it as where the governor screws up and lawmakers waste time. Out of staters have barely any idea what's there at all.
• Landmarks: 6 - There are some, especially if you go to immediately adjacent towns, but nothing particularly notable besides that Egg.
• Family-Friendliness: 2 - I can't for the life of me figure out why you would drag the family here. I've had many good times there, but that's doing adult things in the sketchy bar neighborhood.
• Future: 8 - It never fell as badly as other Upstate cities, and with the government situated there, Albany will always have something driving it. With more overturn in formerly downtrodden neighborhoods, I'm predicting an upside.

+5 bonus for safety rating between 10 and 15
Total: 65

[Alps]

JUNEAU

   
• Location: 3 - I'm going to be less harsh than Oscar. It's beautiful, and in a sheltered port, and about the best climate you can get in Alaska by being along the Pacific Ocean and south of 99.9% of the land mass. That said, inaccessibility will deduct a majority of the points.
• Opportunities: 2 - Alaska is growing, but mostly up by Anchorage. Juneau has government, fishing, and tourism. And it may lose at least one of those in the future. Plus, in order to take advantage of an opportunity, you have to get there somehow.
• Significance: 3 - Glorified fishing town chosen for no reason in particular.
• Safety: 18

      
• Vacant Properties: 10 - None to really speak of.
• Crime: 8

         
• Violent Crime: 5 - Like any relatively small town.
• Property Crime: 3 - Because of the tourist turnover - and the tourism employees who serve them - you do get some less violent crimes.
   
   
• Public Perception: 9 - Alaska! Remote wilderness! Rugged excitement! Juneau is just as far as Anchorage or Nome to the layperson, and just as interesting. Those who have been there on cruises will love the picturesque miniature city on a hill without realizing how far from the rest of the world it is - or they like it for precisely that reason.
• Landmarks: 4 - Nothing in particular, but the whole "northern fishing village" vibe is fun.
• Family-Friendliness: 7 - Because of the tourism industry. I think it would get boring very quickly for more than a quick visit.
• Future: 2 - The government may leave someday, and then Juneau will be like Ketchikan or Homer - a couple of museums and a lot of cruise ship dependence.

+10 bonus for safety rating between 15 and 20
Total: 58

P.S. Zeffy, when you're listing the bottom five, if you have ties, it should be 1. 2. 2. 4. 4., and done. The bottom five should not have seven unless there are multiple ties for 4th or 5th place.

[pianocello]

I've only stopped in Des Moines once (all other times were just passing through), so I'll do what I can. This isn't going to be complete.

Location: 9 - The center of the state is somewhere in Story County, about 20 miles north of Des Moines. For a state that's roughly 200 x 300 miles, that's close enough. Off the top of my head, I think it also lines up with the population center of the state in the 1850s.

Significance: 5 - Insurance is big in Des Moines, and it never hurts to be the capital of the state with the first presidential caucuses.

Public Perception: 5 - People from other states view Des Moines as a small town (generally), people from rural Iowa view Des Moines as a bustling metropolis (generally), and people from other urban centers in Iowa view it as just another city (generally). Interpret that how you will.

Future: 9 - Des Moines has established itself as state capital and insurance boomtown (the Hartford of the West, according to some), two distinctions that likely won't go anywhere anytime soon.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about opportunities, safety, landmarks, or family-friendliness to include in this post.

[triplemultiplex]

We've got a lot of Wisconsinites on AARoads, but I'll take the first crack at Madison.

Location: 8/10
While not near the center of the state (that would be up in Wood County), Madison is easy to get to from most places and is sort of the crossroads of Wisconsin.  It's a reasonable trip from the state's population centers.

Aesthetics: 9/10
Madison is a vibrant, growing city with lots of offer visitors and residents alike.  Tons of parks, extremely bikeable, outstanding nightlife and the lakes are a huge asset unique among state capitals.

Opportunities: 10/10
Lots of stuff going on there.  UW plays a huge role in that with their large bioscience program.  Everything from genetics to agriculture.  Relevent to our hobby, there are a lot of geospatial opportunities there.  The company I work for is based in Madison, for example.

Significance: 6/10
There are more historically significant places in Wisconsin.  Madison's location was chosen specifically to be the capital before statehood.  So everything historic that has happened there happened because it was the capital.

Safety: 18/20
There's very little violent crime in Madison and I never hear much about property crime.  Abandoned buildings are few and far between.  There are no "ghetto" areas.  I'll dock it two points for any ruckus caused by drunk college students.

Public Perception: 8/10
This one is always going to be biased by one's own politics.  Madison is a very liberal city so if that rubs you the wrong way, so will the city at times.  I imagine some of my more conservative fellow cheeseheads will jump at the chance to point out everything they don't like about Madison.  I'll only give 8 because sometimes the city gets in its own way and most people are going to bitch about the traffic.

Landmarks: 6/10
The famous buildings and such are mostly related to the state government or UW.  The capitol building itself is basically a knock-off of the one in Washington and its rotunda is the second largest in the US, after its role model.

Family-Friendliness: 8/10
The low crime, numerous parks and bikeablity are all great assets for raising families.  As far as I'm aware, the public school system in Madison is pretty good for a city of a quarter million.  With the University right there, they have easy access to a steady stream of newly minted, enthusiastic young teachers.  UW is always ranked highly among public universities in the nation, so much so that your kid better have his or her shit together to get in.  Because it has this huge college and vibrant population of young adults, there will be some drunken rowdiness to deal with at night.  So just like the safety category, I'll dock it two points because of the drunks.

Future: 10/10
There's a lot of momentum behind the city, no matter the political climate.  In a knowledge-driven economy, any city with a big university will always have a strategic advantage.  In larger cities, it might not be as noticeable, but Madison's size means UW is a huge influence.  Madison is not completely surrounded by incorporated suburbs so it can continue annexing new land to the west and east for the time being.  I have high confidence in the city's continued success and growth.

Total score: 81/100

[on_wisconsin]

Safety: 18/20
There's very little violent crime in Madison and I never hear much about property crime.  Abandoned buildings are few and far between.  There are no "ghetto" areas.  I'll dock it two points for any ruckus caused by drunk college students.

I completely agree, except for the crime part. Madison actually has a few spots one would not want to find ones self walking alone at night through (Allied Dr, Meadowood/ Raymond Rd, Badger Rd, south Park St, and most of the Northport Dr area). However, these areas are relatively isolated and are not near any touristy or visitor centric places. The city also has a very visible, significant homeless population (for its size) and most of said people spend there time on the streets surrounding the Capitol (The Square), City-County Bldg, and State Street. Most of the shelters and services are coincidentally located right around there as well. 

[SP Cook]

Charleston never struck me as an unsafe place. Of course I have not really been off the numbered routes (60, 119, 21, 61, 25, 114, 601, etc.) but I never really felt uneasy anywhere -- unlike some sections of Louisville and Cincinnati I've been in.

I guess I see Charleston as being one big area with South Charleston, Dunbar, Institute, St. Albans, etc. included, and the main drag (US 60) through St. Albans appeared more seedy to me than anyplace I've been in Charleston proper.

I was doing just the town, my opinions would be almost exactly the opposite if I were doing the whole area.  In fact, I cannot think of a "bad" area outside the city, including St. Albans, which is just a lower middle class working people suburb that looks a bit down because it got bypassed by the interstate and is kinda stuck in the 50s in terms of when everything was built. 

Off the numbered routes is where the action is.  Other than middle class Kanawha City, ultra rich South Hills and few other pockets, you just don't walk around, even in the daytime.  Downtown changes as soon as the sun goes down. 

[english si]

SACRAMENTO
If states were ranked by the percentage of residents who have visited the state capital, I would guess California would be at or near the bottom.

Isn't a lot of the this the Harrisburg, or Jefferson City trap that there are two large population centres, and it is in neither of them? I guess, unlike the other two I mention, it's not on (Harrisburg), or not far from (Jefferson City), the way between the major met areas so scores lower there.

Obviously not a State Capital, but LONDON

• Location (0-10 points) - 4: it sits in one corner of the country. However access from other parts is rather easy, due to the dominance of London, and the country's population is weighed towards the SE
• Aesthetics (0-10 points) - 6: it's London, bits are incredibly beautiful. bits are incredibly ugly, dull suburbia is meh
• Opportunities (0-10 points) - 10: it's the employment capital of Europe, there's low unemployment and masses of economic migration to the city
• Significance (0-10 points) - 10: OK, it lost out the world title to New York some time after WW2, but held it for a good 150 years, if not more. It's been the dominant city in England for about 1000 years, and an important one for nearly 2000.
• Safety (0-20 points - 17


• Vacant Properties (0-10 points) - 10: with sky high house prices due to huge demand and little supply, stuff doesn't stay vacant for long. Unless you count the empty mansions of the uber-rich when they are off elsewhere, but even then there's the staff, etc
• Crime (0-10 points) - 7: docked another one as 8 seems too high!


• Violent Crime - (0-5 points) - 4: compared to the rest of the country, other than a few other cities, it tops this. Still rather low though, and its gangs (mostly using knives) that causes the increase (typical murders happen more in London only due to the large population, not a higher rate than the rest of the country) so you are unlikely to get caught up in it. Therefore only dropping a point, especially as we're comparing with American cities, and the much higher homicide rate over there.
• Property Crime - (0-5 points) - 4: highly unlikely to get mugged (much more likely to just be beaten up for some other reason and then have your wallet stolen, and even then unlikely), possibility of home burglary is slightly higher than other UK cities though
• Public Perception (0-10 points) - 5: depends. Here in the commuter belt, we love London, we don't particularly dislike it. In most of the country, however, they don't like it as it is over-dominant, aloof and different. The elections 2 weeks ago tomorrow showed that, politically, the capital is a totally different place (apparently). Certainly that's a big feeling, though most don't begrudge London's role as capital, just dislike how everywhere else seems second rate in comparison - especially true in England, given the democratic deficit in not having devolved powers.
• Landmarks (0-10 points) - 11: the streets are clogged with tourists taking photos, the top tourist attraction is something designed so that you can see as many landmarks as possible in a short time, etc, etc...
• Family-Friendliness (0-10 points) - 10: tourist capital of the world, is it not? Tons to do for all ages. I cannot remember a time I didn't used to go and have fun in London and apparently I went and had fun even before then.
• Future (0-10 points) - 9: the biggest obstacle is the jealousy of other EU countries trying to cripple London's economy via legislation

I make that 82

[roadman65]

Tallahassee

2/10- Location- Given where it is at being in the Panhandle of the State, and not at all on the main peninsula, it is way off center.

10/10 Popularity- Given it is much as a college town as much as a government seat for our fine state, FSU is a well known college with good athletic teams so it is pretty much known throughout our country.

[empirestate]

TRENTON

• Location (0-10 points) - 5 - Center of New Jersey, easy access to many other major cities and towns, but not much else. 
• Aesthetics (0-10 points) - 4 - Historic colonial-era architecture, but dilapidated buildings make you wonder about safety. 
• Opportunities (0-10 points) - 7 - There are a lot of places to work in Trenton, or the surrounding suburbs of Ewing and Hamilton. 
• Significance (0-10 points) - 9 - The Battle of Trenton was considered by many to be the turning point of the American Revolution, and after the Colonists captured the city, they would go on to win many more battles and eventually the war.
• Safety (0-20 points - 5


• Vacant Properties (0-10 points) - 2 - Um, Trenton, you have a lot of buildings that just sit there, attracting unsavory types of people.
• Crime (0-10 points) - 3


• Violent Crime - (0-5 points) - 1 - It's either a shooting or a stabbing it seems in Trenton.
• Property Crime - (0-5 points) - 2 - Lock your doors at night people! And keep a weapon handy by the bed too.
• Public Perception (0-10 points) - 6 - Used to be great, now is a ghetto. However, more people seem to care about the capital of New Jersey than before. 
• Landmarks (0-10 points) - 8 - The Trenton Makes Bridge is an iconic landmark in the city, as is the Trenton Battle Monument. 
• Family-Friendliness (0-10 points) - 6 - Great if you want to take your family to visit the state capitol or the old Barracks downtown, but other than that the other neighborhoods aren't the best places to be wandering around.
• Future (0-10 points) - 7 - The city has created it's own website to gather input from residents on how to improve the city. It has been selected to receive federal aid in a pilot program under the Obama administration.  I think the city could really turn around.

TOTAL: 57 

Not sure how to avoid this, but you've used safety as a determinant in several other categories besides its own–aesthetics, public perception, and family-friendliness–accounting for 29 of the 43 points you marked off. They are necessarily related factors, to be sure, but it looks to me like safety gets disproportionately weighted, especially with the bonus system.

Of course, if you're creating a ranking of the safety of capital cities, then great! But I thought you were looking for something more all-encompassing.

[Zeffy]

Not sure how to avoid this, but you've used safety as a determinant in several other categories besides its own–aesthetics, public perception, and family-friendliness–accounting for 29 of the 43 points you marked off. They are necessarily related factors, to be sure, but it looks to me like safety gets disproportionately weighted, especially with the bonus system.

Of course, if you're creating a ranking of the safety of capital cities, then great! But I thought you were looking for something more all-encompassing.

The reasoning I have behind safety is, given the chance to live there, would your life be great, or, would it be miserable hoping every passing hour you don't get shot/stabbed/robbed, etc? Safety's also huge, because a lot of people tend to tour capital cities looking to learn more about their state. I know for a fact no one would dare walk around north of the Battle Monument in Trenton, let alone any place that's not in the Downtown area of the city. Aesthetics could mean that the city itself looks great, but in reality, it's a crime-ridden ghetto. Perception is just what people think of the city, not what actually is. Family-friendliness does encompass safety lightly, but it's more about the activities that kids and their families could do. Examples in my capital would be touring the State House, visiting the Old Barracks Museum, the State Library and the Planetarium, the William Trent House, etc.

Safety is rated as high as it is, because from what I've read the biggest issues with living/visiting cities is the crime rates. If those are high, you don't get too many visitors unless it's an event with police protection, and people living there generally are doing so because they are forced to.

[J N Winkler]

I will comment in general terms on Topeka, but I don't really feel comfortable picking numbers out of the air for a rating system.

Topeka is about 60 miles west of the eastern border in a state that is roughly 250 miles north-south and 400 miles east-west, so while it is fairly near the center of population of the state, it is quite a long drive from western Kansas and there is a long-standing perception that politicians in Topeka are not really interested in that region or in rural affairs generally.

Topeka has some buildings that are of architectural interest, such as the State Capitol, Cedar Crest (not normally open to the public), and the Kansas History Center, but as a whole the urban landscape is fairly bland.  The State Capitol and the Kansas History Center are long-standing AAA "star" (now "GEM") tourist attractions.  Another important visitor destination is the Brown v. Board of Education national historical park at the former Monroe Elementary in what was and still is the black part of town.  (Kansas never had full-bore segregation, but the Topeka BOE is part of the case caption because it exercised an option--then permitted by state law--to operate segregated elementary schools.)

Compared to other large metropolitan areas in the state, Topeka is sleepy.  It is an excellent place to raise a family because the cost of living is low, but the local economy is in a state of long-term stagnation since landmark employers like the AT&SF business offices and the Menninger Clinic have either closed or transferred operations elsewhere.  State employment in Kansas is low-paid and insecure.  Like most second-tier cities, Topeka is in the position of having to give generous business incentives in order to attract expanded private-sector employment, and job growth successes (such as the recent opening of a new factory to produce M&Ms and other packaged candies) tend to be few and far between.  Among incorporated cities in Kansas, Topeka is in long-term relative population decline, and was overtaken by Overland Park a decade or two ago as the state's second most populous city.

The public safety picture in Topeka is mediocre at best.  For example, the murder rate is about 12 per 100,000 population, versus 6 per 100,000 in Wichita and 4.8 per 100,000 in the US as a whole.  (The US rate compares very unfavorably with Canada and the EU-15, where murder rates range from 1.6 per 100,000 in Canada and 1.2 per 100,000 in the UK down to 0.8 per 100,000 in Spain.)  By this measure, however, Topeka still does much better than Kansas City (22.6 per 100,000 population).

Topeka public schools are fair but, unlike the Shawnee Mission schools, not superlative in national terms.

[J N Winkler]

The reasoning I have behind safety is, given the chance to live there, would your life be great, or, would it be miserable hoping every passing hour you don't get shot/stabbed/robbed, etc?

I don't think there are very many large cities (even ones with very high average crime rates, like Detroit) where casual visitors or college-educated middle-class residents in stable employment would live in that kind of fear.  Crime is very anisotropic by neighborhood.  For example, I live in a ZIP code which has had just 18 murders in the last 25 years for a population of about 44,000, or an average of 1 per 2445 persons.  The countywide average over the same time period is 1 per 642 and in the worst part of the city it is 1 in 79.  An individual's vulnerability to violent crime also varies considerably according to whether he or she is "citizen" or "street."

If those are high, you don't get too many visitors unless it's an event with police protection, and people living there generally are doing so because they are forced to.

A lot of that has to do with income potential net of living expenses.  In very high-crime cities it is often hard to buy into safe neighborhoods using the income that is available from the sorts of jobs that are easy to find in the city.  In Detroit, for example, you can buy a house for about $3,000 but a house in a safe neighborhood costs considerably more, and jobs that pay enough to allow you to afford such a house are scarce.

In such cities it is actually much easier to come as a visitor since you are not entangled in this housing/employment tradeoff.  I never worry about going to Kansas City although its murder rate is almost four times Wichita's.

[Zeffy]

I don't think there are very many large cities (even ones with very high average crime rates, like Detroit) where casual visitors or college-educated middle-class residents in stable employment would live in that kind of fear.  Crime is very anisotropic by neighborhood.  For example, I live in a ZIP code which has had just 18 murders in the last 25 years for a population of about 44,000, or an average of 1 per 2445 persons.  The countywide average over the same time period is 1 per 642 and in the worst part of the city it is 1 in 79.  An individual's vulnerability to violent crime also varies considerably according to whether he or she is "citizen" or "street."

I'm aware that crime is generally targeted crime, and not random crime, but at the same time, I've seen examples of crime that aren't fueled by gang affiliation, drugs, etc. From what I've read, even wearing a color of a gang in a city is a generally bad idea (well that sucks, that eliminates 1/4 of my wardrobe), and some people are targeted based on race, they can be a citizen with a perfect track record, yet they still get targeted. From past experience, black gang members don't appreciate normal white kids strolling through their hood, often getting loud and issuing threats to said person. Granted, rule #1 of urban cities is do not establish eye contact with anyone and don't stop moving unless you have to. And even then, if your life is in danger, keep moving anyway. My visits in Trenton have not been anything that I would describe as harrowing, but homeless people among others asking for money is nothing short of discomforting.

A lot of that has to do with income potential net of living expenses.  In very high-crime cities it is often hard to buy into safe neighborhoods using the income that is available from the sorts of jobs that are easy to find in the city.  In Detroit, for example, you can buy a house for about $3,000 but a house in a safe neighborhood costs considerably more, and jobs that pay enough to allow you to afford such a house are scarce.

In such cities it is actually much easier to come as a visitor since you are not entangled in this housing/employment tradeoff.  I never worry about going to Kansas City although its murder rate is almost four times Wichita's.

There are some decently high-priced (for a city like Trenton) properties in the south Trenton neighborhoods, ($85k+), while some houses that are in disrepair (generally in the northern section of the city) can be bought for 1/6 of that price. As for visitors to Trenton, the high crime rate and very high presence of street gangs is enough deter visitors unless the event is being watched by the police department. It is a little ridiculous that people think visiting a populated area of the city puts their lives in danger just because of the high crime rate. I've been to Trenton 11 times, and every time I've never seen a crime or heard the pop of a gunshot. I think part of the fear could be of the perception that the media provides of Trenton, and the countless articles of "x shot in Trenton", and if the victim survives the shooting (as is often because gangsters aim is... questionable at best), they are mostly uncooperative with police, because usually, they aren't a model citizen.

Of course, in regards to Trenton, as mentioned before, they have launched a website (http://www.trenton250.org) to gather inputs on residents and visitors to Trenton to improve the city. It's a great first step to show the people that the city cares about how it's perceived and what goes on in the city.

As said before, my rating system is always open to changes and suggestions by people.

[Pete from Boston]

[Family-friendliness does encompass safety lightly, but it's more about the activities that kids and their families could do. Examples in my capital would be touring the State House, visiting the Old Barracks Museum, the State Library and the Planetarium, the William Trent House, etc.

Family-friendly just for visits/tourism, or for living there?  These examples are great for the former, but for the latter there is much more involved, namely good schools, environmental quality, access to health care, parental/social support systems, affordability, etc.    A lot of these are general "quality of life" indicators, which seems to only be represented in the original question by safety factors.

[Zeffy]

Family-friendly just for visits/tourism, or for living there?  These examples are great for the former, but for the latter there is much more involved, namely good schools, environmental quality, access to health care, parental/social support systems, affordability, etc.    A lot of these are general "quality of life" indicators, which seems to only be represented in the original question by safety factors.

Generally tourism for this category. However that is something I did overlook before, and I will try to figure out how to fix the rating system to distinguish between tourism / living in the city.

[agentsteel53]

rule #1 of urban cities is do not establish eye contact with anyone and don't stop moving unless you have to.

I've taken photos in some pretty terrible neighborhoods (hey, it's where the old signs are) and I've never had any trouble with a friendly small wave and nod of acknowledgement.  the residents are people, not wild animals.  I'm okay with being perceived as eccentric but harmless.  the worst that's ever happened to me is I've been offered drugs.