
We looked at 177 cities. Newer homes = fewer break-ins. Mostly
We ran 2024 FBI burglary data against housing age across 177 US cities, and the pattern is pretty clear: The newer the homes in a city, the fewer break-ins on average.
Cities where most homes were built after 2000 averaged 14.8 burglaries per 100,000 people, while cities full of pre-1960 homes averaged 36.6. that's more than double, just going by build era.
But then there's Seattle. It has a well-above-average share of newer homes (37.5% built after 2000), and it still scored the highest burglary rate in the whole study at 97.8 per 100,00. Denver, Houston, and Austin shoed the same trend on a smaller scare: High break-in numbers despite new constructions.
So a recent build date clearly isn't doing the work people assume it is.
The reason makes sense once you think about it. A newer home might come with a better deadbolt and a tighter frame, but build quality isn't the same as ana alarm system or a camera that alerts you to danger in real time.
Did you assume your newer place made you safer? And has that ever actually been put to the test?