Violence in the city has plummeted in recent years, especially in the centre.
As the Evening Times Crime on Your Streets series showed this week, knife assaults alone were down a third last year.
Youth crime, in particular, is falling faster than overall levels. It has - roughly speaking - halved since 2007, the end of the ill-fated "War on Neds".
But what does this mean for the city? What effect will less violence have on our public services, our economy and our quality of life?
And what do we have to do to keep the trend going in the right direction? Crime in Glasgow may be falling but for many offences, including violence, we remain the worst city in Scotland.
We asked a council boss, a university expert and a health executive what they think. This is what they said...
Gordon Matheson Leader, Glasgow City Council
THE message from the Evening Times' excellent, annual series on crime is clear - Glasgow is becoming a much safer city.
For too long Glasgow's reputation has suffered because of an association with violence and this is not the time to go over all of that again.
We've heard it all before.
So it is incredibly heartening to see the figures for violent crime in Glasgow coming down across a whole number of indicators over a number of years.
There can now be no doubt the long-term trend for assaults, robberies and the serious violence is highly positive.
In fact we are heading towards a stage where crime figures on violence are at a historic low.
There may be all manner of reasons for this.
But it is unquestionable that the hard work, dedication and, yes, courage of organisations and individuals involved in the response to crime have been a major factor.
Together we have simply refused to accept the idea that Glasgow is, by its nature, a violent place.
Strong and effective policing, innovative community safety initiatives and challenging the behaviour of offenders with social work programmes that are proven to work are all helping to move things forward.
I'm not trying to suggest that everything is now perfect. It is not.
But it has to be a comfort that the chances of becoming a victim of violence are reducing all the time.
The benefits of this to individuals, communities and the city as a whole are huge.
In practical terms less violence means fewer hospital admissions, less time spent in court, prison and social work offices, with the police also able to dedicate resources to other matters.
That adds up to much less strain on the public purse.
On a personal level people can go about their business with increased confidence and that can only be good for individual lives.
An absence of violence will see us living more settled home lives and be more likely to stick with education or get involved with training and employment.
This can only lift up communities and mean there is an enhanced legacy to pass on to the next generation.
There is still much work to be done, but we have something very strong to build on.
I am pleased to say we are putting the corrosive effects of violence in its place.
Linda de Caestecker, Director of Public Health
VIOLENCE and external causes are major contributors to the inequality of life expectancies for people who live in our most deprived neighbourhoods.
Why? Because people who are killed are younger when they die and more years of life are lost. This loss is very socially patterned: it affects deprived communities most. Injury from violence doesn't just kill. It is also a major cause of ill health.
So too is the fear of crime. This affects people's health and well-being. Our most recent survey of people shows our population does feel safer. They feel safer after dark. They feel safer in their own homes. They feel safer in the city centre at night. That has a huge positive effect on our mental health and subsequently on our overall health.
If people feel better about their safety they are much more likely to adopt other healthy behaviours.
They have more self- esteem and more faith that things can change. If our mental health and wellbeing was better across the population we would see a huge improvement in physical health.
Violence, of course, is both a cause and a symptom of our poor health. People are violent because they have problems with alcohol, because they have had a very poor early years upbringing or because they themselves have been subject to abuse and violence. It can be a vicious circle.
But then if people feel good about where they live and their safety, they feel good about their lives and the absence of violence can have the opposite effect, it can be a virtuous circle.
Less violence is also good for the NHS. There is huge demand in our A&E units from violent injuries. Our staff are very busy with lots of people coming with a variety of problems. It is amazing the demand at certain times of the week and at night. If that was greatly reduced that would free up resources for other things.
Our A&Es are always under pressure. We have an ageing population and more emergency admissions as a result. We are very good at dealing with these issues. But less violence means more resources to deal better with other people - or to spend on preventative projects such as healthy living advice.
A lot of us now think of violence as a public health issue. I don't just mean that maxillofacial surgeons are very aware of that relationship between alcohol, violence and injury.
I mean that it is not just the police who are responsible for reducing violent crime, but community safety and community services and education, as well as health service.
This is a problem for the whole population, even those who are not involved in crime.
It is very hard to shift that resource when you are still dealing with crime on the street.
But many in the police, and beyond, understand that focusing on early years is absolutely key to reducing violence.
The downward trend in violence is welcome. It has not got to a level where we can't see it going down further.
We are still a city that needs to tackle violence. There is still a lot more to be done.