Is all the talk of "project teardown displaced residents ruin neighborhood" just discrete racism? (Chicago: condo, violent crime)

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Tex,

Chicago has a strong service sector for jobs. Detroit does not. Big difference.

I do agree that Chicago is one of the few large US cities other than NY where people actually want to live in the city as opposed to the burbs.

Detroit follows a model similar to St. Louis where all the jobs and people with jobs moved to the burbs leaving not much but poverty in the city center. Detroit just got hit harder due to its exposure to auto industry.

And Boston, and San Francisco, and Seattle, and Minneapolis, and parts of Atlanta, Dallas, Philadelphia, parts of Cincinnatit, even parts of St. Louis etc. etc.

Just about every large US city these days have experiences gentrification and have at least some desirable, vibrant urban neighborhoods. Detroit is really kind of a glaring exception to the rule. Chicago may have simply a much greater quantity and more options.

Even still today, the city mostly appeals to singles, young families, the super wealthy, and retirees. Chicago public schools are still a major barrier to real middle class revival over much of the city. Only about 1/3 of the city is really desirable. For families with school age kids, the burbs are still the way to go.


Now to your other point, which you are right for the most part. Chicago was always bigger and always a larger, more diversified city, it was in danger of all the white collared business moving out to the suburbs. Daley the 1st made sure that didn't happen. Although Chicago was close. In the 70s and 80s, Chicagos future was uncertain.

The point I was trying to make is that the native, local white working class culture is not as different from those of other "rustbely" cities for the simple fact that Chicago. The white collared service-industry segment of Chicago is a totally other culture and honestly has little to do with the "other" Chicago.

Theres many reasons that have to do with Chicago history, but a lot of it has to do with Chicagos much better central location in the country, the historic dominance of Germans and Swedes on the North side, which were more skilled and and had more resources to start small industries (as opposed to Irish, Poles, etc.) but mosty importantly the Universities which helped to bring in talented, skilled workforce. If it wasn't for Northwestern, University of Chicago, Loyala, DePaul, UIC Chicago bringing in talent over the decades would be more rustbelt. The native white working class really haven't played a whole big part in making Chicago different from other rustbelt cities. (Excpept for crowd control as policemen).

[ajolotl]

Back to the original question -- I think most people base very general, far-reaching opinions on a very small set of personal experiences that in no way support the sweeping conclusions that they draw. It also seems plausible that on some level negative perceptions of blacks feed into this, even if in maybe an indirect or subtle way. It kind of gives the feeling that everything comes together and fits nicely into the theory. I suspect that there is some kernel of truth to the basic premise, but that it gets wildly exaggerated through word of mouth stories reinforcing each other. The numbers just don't add up -- there aren't enough former CHA thugs to go around to all the areas that are supposedly being destroyed by them. Probably would help to get some solid number on how many there are and where they've moved to. Without that I think it's hard to see the big picture.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by allen2323

Median household income wise most of the southside looks very similar to the northside. The northside really only has two super high income zip codes that don't compare to the southside and they are lincoln park 60614 and lakeview 60613. We tend to think of the entire northside as being so much more affluent by looking at those two areas and overlook all of the other areas that basically compare to the southside class wise. There are more bars and yuppie functions on the northside for white folks in different areas but those areas on average don't have a higher median household income than many southside neighborhoods do. The southside of chicago is made up of way more middle class areas (or atleast middle class as far as northside chicago standards go)than it has low income areas. And way more nice areas than most people who don't live on the southside care to even notice or give credit for. Many of the nicest areas outside of near downtown are predominantly black and can be found on the southside. Many of these areas are almost entirely black middle class by the way. Chatham, West Chesterfield, Pill Hill, most of woodlawn, most of the south shore, jackson park highlands, morgan park, beverly, hyde park, bronzeville, kenwood, just to name a few. The notion that the entire southside has just totally decayed just isn't the reality in the streets.

Woodlawn is like Englewood

I agree that Lincoln Park and Lakeview are the two high income communities on the northside; add in the Near Northside, that makes three. The difference is these two northside neighborhoods are bigger and more energetic than there southside counterparts. Lakeview alone has nearly 100,000 people with hundreds of amenities. Lakeview and Lincoln Park combined population makes up over one-third of the Northside lakefront. The middle class and high income neighborhoods on the southside lack this. I wish there was a southside Lakeview. I think this would help attract more people to the southside. Hyde Park is the most likely candidate, but for some reason, its a bar/club desert.

[kindrakindra]

Originally Posted by chirack

That is the result of many things. Gentrification on the North side and elsewhere pushing some people out.

The tearing down of the projects might have caused some people who were section 8 but not project dwellers to leave as the project dwellers mover into poor sections of town.

The throw away nature of suburbia, in a sense.People who prefer the burbs like big houses and big open yards. They want something more rural than urban but not something rural(i.e farm animals in the back yard). If people keep moving further away from the city what does this do to home prices of places closer in?

Finally anywhere where there is cheap rent section 8 will come and cheap housing prices can drive cheap rent.

Finally that was the intent of the program. While moving out to the burbs might be questionable from transportation/access to aid point of view, the goal of section 8 was to disperse the poor so that they were not all in one place. It is not a healthy thing when lots of poor sit in one place. The trouble is those poor are probably sitting on the bad side or the cheap side of those towns creating a new smaller concentration.

The big, newer farther out houses are the ones that have really suffered in this down housing market, while the shorter commute burbs have retained more value.

Regarding Oak Park, the lack of For Sale signs is a little annoying when house shopping.

[ajolotl]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Many suburbs were deliberately built with limited sidewalks. Poor people without cars would find it especially difficult without a sidewalk.

I have generous sidewalks in my neighborhood and the poorest people seem to prefer the middle of the street.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

I have generous sidewalks in my neighborhood and the poorest people seem to prefer the middle of the street.

LOL... yes that is annoying. My experience is that they will come out in the streets if the street itself is not extremely busy. Also some people seem to think that walking in the middle of the street is safer from a crime standpoint (I know weird.). Apparently it is easier to rob someone on the sidewalk where you could come out of the shadows than way out in the middle of the street. Finally some car less people don't grasp just how much distance it takes a car to stop and don't appreciate the danger.

Lack of sidewalk just backfires on the community itself imho. Lots of rich places have sidewalks and are not going to turn poor that easy. Heck rural poor dont have sidewalks either. Once housing prices are above about 200k you have priced the truly poor out.

[SJaye]

I too have heard this talk often in places like Madison, WI, Bloomington, IL, etc. I agree that it is overblown. The common phrases I will hear is that the few so-called "ghettos" that exist in these cities are the fault of Chicago exporting it's underclass there.

I do not, however, agree that everyone, or even a majority or plurality of the people who expose points of view like this are hiding some kind of racist tendencies. I think there are some people that simply believe racism to be much more rampant and widespread than it really is-- but that is a topic for another fifty threads that have already happened.

My theory is that people in these towns, whether they be subrubs or other midwest cities, view their "ghettos" as a big blemish in their otherwise friendly and safe towns. They don't really want to believe that their town, the people, the leadership, etc. would allow any part of their town to become dangerous or undesirable. So, they need to place the blame somewhere to maintain their sense of pride in their town. "We have a great town, with great people, but Chicago tore down the project and many people came here" is an easy way to rationalize one or two bad areas existing in an otherwise safe mid-sized Midwest town. Elsewhere in Illinois, where they are already mad at Chicago over Illinois' rampant political corruption, and in Wisconsin, where Chicago area tourists are blamed for over-crowding and polluting all of their towns, it is not too hard to believe that residents would pounce on an opportunity to attribute a problem that "should not exist" to Chicago.

[MannheimMadman]

Originally Posted by urza216

Yep. People from Iowa to Minnesota to Kentucky are all talking about how they think people from Chicago's torn down projects are moving into their neighborhood. And yet approximately 80% of these ex-project dwellers relocated elsewhere in the city. Interesting.

I wonder if they ever took time to think about their claims. Why the heck would someone who had likely been in Chicagoland for a long time pack up and leave for Kentucky or Iowa, of all places? I have been to these states, and after living a fairly urban lifestyle, would not wish these locales on the worst of my enemies. I'm not a poor ghetto black, but I feel like I can safely say that they wouldn't think, "Ah, they're knocking down Cabrini, let's head to Iowa!"

[Drover]

If there's something we just don't get enough of around here, it's race threads. Thankfully, this glaring oversight has now been corrected.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by Drover

If there's something we just don't get enough of around here, it's race threads. Thankfully, this glaring oversight has now been corrected.

Some people are just uncomfortable with talking about race, I guess. Unfortunately, the problem doesn't go away no matter how much you ignore it.