Riverside v. La Grange (Berwyn, Oak Park: transplants, salons, rental)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

My bad. Mea Culpa.

I think the entire area will be fine. I honestly don't think it takes much speculative force to come to the conclusion that fuel prices will not remain cheap forever. So people will seek to live closer to the City and along commuter train lines. That, coupled with the existence of Riverside, Oak Park, and La Grange and their business districts, will be enough to make the "region," if you will, desirable also.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I think the entire area will be fine. I honestly don't think it takes much speculative force to come to the conclusion that fuel prices will not remain cheap forever. So people will seek to live closer to the City and along commuter train lines.

Fuel prices have to go up eventually as demand increases and supply wanes, but with new technological solutions how long will it take for sprawled suburbia to feel pinched? It may take decades, and the average person moves every three years. I'm not sure the fuel price factor will come in to play during my tenure in the next home I buy. I will certainly have multiple transportation options available to me including trains wherever I choose to live, but most people still aren't with me in this regard. And it's really hard to say when they will be. Maybe next year... Or maybe in thirty years when I'm retiring.

[stefanodimera72]

You can't really go wrong w/ either...Riverside resident since '75, grew up here. Today isn't much different than the late 70's, early 80's - You'll find kiddie bicycles left overnight on front lawns, kids playing Kick the Can until 9pm, and little boys and girls riding their bikes or walking around the block unsupervised by adults.

I still know people who never lock their homes. To be honest, more kids roam the neighborhood now than back then, and over the last 10yrs I've seen a rise in kiddies who play out in their front yards like we did. The town is certainly in better shape than back then, better landscaping, more upscale cars, better furnished homes, the baseball diamonds are actually maintained, etc.

If I have to be honest, a little bit of "Mayberry" has been lost though, but i place blame on people less willing to get acquainted w/ their neighbors. My mom worked hard on getting to know absolutely everyone, as did all moms back then.

And I can't remember the last time I saw a kid mowing the lawn, delivering newspapers or hunting for turtles and frogs down along the river. That was about the extent of my youth, mowing lawns for $5, taking over my buddy's newspaper route when he went on family vacation, and bringing home frogs, tadpoles and turtles much to my mom's dismay.

One money saving tip if you do move to Riverside and commute downtown - you'll save around $15/mo if you use the Berwyn trainstation on Harlem.

[johnm68]

When we moved from the city, we also narrowed it down between Riverside and LaGrange, and selected Riverside. My take is that you either buy into Riverside (not in the financial, but in the philosophical sense) or you don't. If you do buy into it you like the sense of apartness, the winding and confusing streets and the diversity of architecture. You accept the fact that the downtown is limited (although many of us who live there do believe it could be better and would like to see improvement), and you don't have a problem with paying higher property taxes (although I'm not sure LaGrange's are much cheaper). You probably are also comfortable with living in something of an enclave, and don't have a problem with some of the surrounding communities being majority Hispanic (not to say people in LaGrange do--just that the suburbs around Riverside are a bit more diverse). I'll also second what the above poster said about kids--Riverside is still a place where you'll see a lot of young kids riding bikes, playing in the parks, etc., with no adults around--I think this is healthy.

LT is probably a better school than RB, but with 2 separate campuses, it is pretty big, and division of the schools into one campus for frosh-soph, the other for junior -senior, is a bit odd. Grade schools are equal, with Riverside maybe having a slight edge. Crime is, at least to me, a non-issue in either community--certainly there are occasional burglaries, thefts, etc., but both these communities are inner-ring suburbs of Chicago--crime happens, and there is very little violent crime. I agree that Riverside's neighborong communities are not as nice, but I will note that the vast majority of crime in North Riverside is limited to the mall (NR cops have a reputation for a pretty strict hand when someone steps over the mall property line and into the village itself) and Berwyn is an interesting and diverse community that is still quite stable.

Bottom line, you can't really go wrong with either one--its just a matter of what you want.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by BRU67

You'd be suprised at how many Oak Park and north side renters move to Berwyn for their first house.

Speaking of this, I've been seeing the "Move to Berwyn" billboards all over the place lately, particularly in said North Side neighborhoods filled with renters. There's one just south of me on Broadway and Sheridan right now. I hope the campaign has a positive effect. Berwyn surely has some staunch supporters, but I still feel it's a bit underappreciated by the masses. But there's a certain type of Gen Y Chicagoan that constantly strives for the "authentic", and Berwyn might appeal to them.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Fuel prices have to go up eventually as demand increases and supply wanes, but with new technological solutions how long will it take for sprawled suburbia to feel pinched? It may take decades, and the average person moves every three years. I'm not sure the fuel price factor will come in to play during my tenure in the next home I buy. I will certainly have multiple transportation options available to me including trains wherever I choose to live, but most people still aren't with me in this regard. And it's really hard to say when they will be. Maybe next year... Or maybe in thirty years when I'm retiring.

If fuel prices go up the car industry will already be one step ahead of everyone, with some sort of fuel that is affordable for us all or cars that run on significantly less fuel. Theres simply too much money to be made to do otherwise. The car and suburban sprawl, will always reign supreme to public transit and urbanity.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

If fuel prices go up the car industry will already be one step ahead of everyone, with some sort of fuel that is affordable for us all or cars that run on significantly less fuel. Theres simply too much money to be made to do otherwise. The car and suburban sprawl, will always reign supreme to public transit and urbanity.

Blind faith in magical technological fixes is dangerous public policy. We use A LOT of oil and fossil fuels right now to support urban sprawl. While there are alternative energy sources being developed, we simply have nothing at a scale that will allow us to consume energy at the rate that we do today. We just won't be able to meet the demand that sprawl creates if oil becomes expensive. Unless there is some magical breakthrough in cold fusion or some comparable technology that creates A LOT of energy cheaply, the sprawl suburbs are doomed in the long term.

[ajolotl]

I think there are two separate issues -- fossil fuels to support combustion engines (which I think eventually will be phased out) and electricity generating capacity and the associated ability to store it cheaply and in large quantities. I can imagine battery technology breakthroughs in the next several decades (with sufficient R&D emphasis now). We will still eventually have an electricity generation problem that will need to be fixed with or without cars. THe only known answer is nuclear power plants (hopefully next generation as current plants are dinosaurs). Wind, solar, etc. are a long, long way off and a bit of a fantasy. Fusion, as the old saying goes, is the energy source of the future .. and always will be. Good luck with ITER France but fusion is still 100+ years away if it is at all possible.

Whatever the case I still think we'll see a continued trend toward more urban living, not totally convinced though it will be driven by the unsustainability of the individual automobile.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Speaking of this, I've been seeing the "Move to Berwyn" billboards all over the place lately, particularly in said North Side neighborhoods filled with renters. There's one just south of me on Broadway and Sheridan right now. I hope the campaign has a positive effect. Berwyn surely has some staunch supporters, but I still feel it's a bit underappreciated by the masses. But there's a certain type of Gen Y Chicagoan that constantly strives for the "authentic", and Berwyn might appeal to them.

You've got public elementary schools that are decent (good in Emerson and Irving's case), a public high school that isn't scoring well, and many private school options in the area (which are nice but can be costly). Not unlike Beverly. But peeps, for whatever reasons, seem much less willing to accept this kind of situation in a "suburb" -- however similar that suburb may be to a City neighborhood. That's probably the main reason why the community is underappreciated by the masses.

Thus, IMHO, the city is correct in advertising itself to north siders and trying to cast itself as more "Chicago," for lack of a better term. I don't see how that hurts and it will probably have a positive impact over time. Thanks largely to a popular late night monster movie host, Berwyn already enjoys a place in the Chicago vocabulary that other suburbs do not, and developed a cult following of sorts. A lot of old skool Berwynites despise the guy but personally, I think his overall impact couldn't have been more positive.

Hopefully, one result of the marketing will be a reasonably large contingent of educated parents in Gen Y that aren't as obsessive over public school standardized test scores, which will allow for improvement in the schools by default. I do know several caring and involved parents who have their kids in Morton West and they're doing just fine. The school's overall scores are unacceptable, but if you have a good kid and stay involved in his/her education, the overall scores are less of a concern.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

I think there are two separate issues -- fossil fuels to support combustion engines (which I think eventually will be phased out) and electricity generating capacity and the associated ability to store it cheaply and in large quantities. I can imagine battery technology breakthroughs in the next several decades (with sufficient R&D emphasis now). We will still eventually have an electricity generation problem that will need to be fixed with or without cars. THe only known answer is nuclear power plants (hopefully next generation as current plants are dinosaurs). Wind, solar, etc. are a long, long way off and a bit of a fantasy. Fusion, as the old saying goes, is the energy source of the future .. and always will be. Good luck with ITER France but fusion is still 100+ years away if it is at all possible.

Whatever the case I still think we'll see a continued trend toward more urban living, not totally convinced though it will be driven by the unsustainability of the individual automobile.

I think your last paragraph hits it. Factors other than high gas prices support urban living. You tend to have a more close knit neighborhood, a more interesting housing stock, much greater walkability (beneficial for reasons other than gas savings), a lot more stuff to do, and, of course, proximity to the region's largest job center. Even if gas is $.01 per gallon, it still kind of sucks to be in your car for an hour each way to work. I think people are starting to realize this.