Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you will note, the vast majority of Winnetka is zoned single family, with large minimum lot size requirements - most of it being 24,000 square feet. To put that into perspective, the average Chicago lot is 3,125 square feet. The smallest allowable single family lot size anywhere in Winnetka is close to 3x the size of the average Chicago lot.
There is also very little area zoned for multi-family, and most of that is along the train line. No doubt so higher end condos could be built along the commuter train corridor. These zoning regulations have the cumulative effect of limiting affordable housing.
I'm not meaning to pick on Winnetka here. There are many other suburbs with similar zoning maps. This just illustrates the issue of how some suburbs have managed to remain so homogenous, which goes to the OP's question.
I think when African americans look for homes they look to a suburb closer to where they might live or be from. Since most of them are in the south side or west side, they tend to look at those suburbs first rather than jumping miles to the North Shore, over places they are unfamilar with and will take them far away from friends and family. Patterns of migration took this into account, the Czechs went west down Cermak Road, the Italians went to the western and near NW suburbs, etc.
I've tended to hear this over the years when people are trying to defend the homogeneousness of an area. But when they're talking about areas which they don't like, they quickly attribute racism as the reason why the "sundown town" is segregated. It gives me whiplash!
Can't have it both ways. Either take the position that people are choosing to live where they want to and leave it alone or apply parental housing rules across the board. To do otherwise is completely dishonest.
Sorry to break it to you but Winnetka is exclusionary. You are going on ancedotal evidence and emotion. The data shows that very few Chicagoland African-Americans could afford to live there. That makes it exclusionary.
And this could be corrected by affordable low income housing developments, which many North Shore residents no doubt support (just not by them). Then we might start talking about it not being exclusionary. Until that happens I would view it as exclusionary, as would objective data.
Also, do you have any factual support for the statement that there are thousands of black millionaires in Chicago? Only 2.1% of African American households in Chicago earned over a $100,000/year as of 2015, and there has been a lot of black flight from Chicago and Cook County since then. Not saying you're wrong. You can be a millionaire and not be particularly rich, or be able to afford the North Shore. Just have not seen that data.
Yeah but that still doesn’t explain why of the African American households making over $100K a year, few choose to settle in the north suburbs. FWIW I work with a lot of African Americans who either make over $100k or are in households with income over $100K. The job is in the SW suburbs, so most people live on the south side of Chicago, S or SW suburbs. Flossmoor has a median household income of over $100K. Olympia fields is at around $100K and is a large majority African American. Beverly is also close to $100K and is balanced. A lot of other SW suburbs have higher incomes and are more than 1% African American.
Part of the reason why the US has a race issue is because people like OP create useless topics like this that do nothing but stir the pot. But to answer your question, clearly whoever lives in those mentioned areas has some serious money, I don't think being "white" has a whole lot to do with it, if you can make that kind of money you can move there too. I personally know a few Asian friends that live in those parts, and to no ones surprise they're loaded.
If you don't feel comfortable going there, then don't go there, plain and simple.
Yeah but that still doesn’t explain why of the African American households making over $100K a year, few choose to settle in the north suburbs. FWIW I work with a lot of African Americans who either make over $100k or are in households with income over $100K. The job is in the SW suburbs, so most people live on the south side of Chicago, S or SW suburbs. Flossmoor has a median household income of over $100K. Olympia fields is at around $100K and is a large majority African American. Beverly is also close to $100K and is balanced. A lot of other SW suburbs have higher incomes and are more than 1% African American.
Well, over 17,000 people, or nearly 20% of the population, left South Lawndale between 2000 and 2015 for suburbs like Berwyn and Cicero when there was no gentrification whatsoever going on, and this is continuing apace today. Yet it can't even get a coffee shop or tear down a blighted strip mall and replace it with something new without there being an anti-gentrification protest, largely attended by people from outside the community.
Nor can one build a new housing development there, or in Pilsen, without 30% of it being set aside for low income tenants. Developers often place people displaced by developments in higher income areas into these lower end developments to fulfill their low income housing requirements as to the high end developments, which City ordinance allows. So the debate, in its current format, does not focus on market choice. It focuses on "housing justice" for the marginally incomed.
Again, you can't have this both ways - talking about market choice out of one side of the mouth while decrying market forces through protests and mandates out of the other side. Has anyone tried to build affordable housing in the high opportunity areas we are discussing? How is everyone so sure it's not going to work? I think these suburbs need to step up to the plate in terms of the housing justice being espoused.
Part of the reason why the US has a race issue is because people like OP create useless topics like this that do nothing but stir the pot. But to answer your question, clearly whoever lives in those mentioned areas has some serious money, I don't think being "white" has a whole lot to do with it, if you can make that kind of money you can move there too. I personally know a few Asian friends that live in those parts, and to no ones surprise they're loaded.
If you don't feel comfortable going there, then don't go there, plain and simple.
I don't think it's worthless at all. It give us a chance to discuss the hypocrisy surrounding the issue of fair housing.
BRU67, I think we might be talking past one another. Yes, Winnetka (and anywhere) is exclusive in terms of an entry price. However, it is not racially exclusive. Affluent African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians can buy, sell, or rent real estate in Winnetka with no obstacles. However, it does not appear that many affluent people of those demographics aspire to live there.
A good example would be comparing Winnetka and Glencoe. They are exceedingly similar communities on the surface. However, one is predominately Jewish and the other has very few Jews. People like being close to community amenities (houses of worship, hair salons, grocery stores, etc.) that fit their own 'group', for lack of a better description. This pattern plays out across this country.
I also think that you have a cartoonish view of both the African-American population and of the North Shore's politics. There are thousands of African-Americans in the Chicagoland area that could afford to live in Winnetka. Those people often choose to live in other expensive areas or at expensive properties in more diverse areas. It's a choice.
With regard to politics, affordable housing, and hypocrisy. The North Shore has trended heavily Democratic in recent years, but I would not describe most of the people living here as uber-progressive. It is the conservative-type who are more frequently opposed to affordable housing development when the topic is brought up, and conservatives typically oppose "affordable housing" initiatives because they have largely been demonstrated to either not work or too complicated.
I guarantee if you call The Albion Luxury Apartments in Downtown Evanston right now, they will tell you that all of their market-rate apartments are occupied but they have below-market apartments available. But...there is supposedly a shortage of affordable housing on the North Shore.
Start with false assumptions and you're doomed to reach false conclusions. The OP states the case as if the north suburbs are the only all white areas. In fact, If you swing an arc around the 'burbs, everything north of the line extending to the SW thru about, say, Orland north all the way to the lake again on the North Shore, you'll see very little black representation. (What about Evanston or North Chicago?)
Others have mentioned the economic factors that limit the spread of blacks to the 'burbs in genberal, but among all people who moved out of the city (Chicago school of sociology -- concentric rings theory) most found new homes directly in line from where they started, ie-- if you lived on the northside, you moved to north suburbs; from the West side, you moved to west suburbs, etc. The South side was the home of the black neighborhoods. They moved to the south 'burbs.
BRU67, I think we might be talking past one another. Yes, Winnetka (and anywhere) is exclusive in terms of an entry price. However, it is not racially exclusive. Affluent African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians can buy, sell, or rent real estate in Winnetka with no obstacles. However, it does not appear that many affluent people of those demographics aspire to live there.
A good example would be comparing Winnetka and Glencoe. They are exceedingly similar communities on the surface. However, one is predominately Jewish and the other has very few Jews. People like being close to community amenities (houses of worship, hair salons, grocery stores, etc.) that fit their own 'group', for lack of a better description. This pattern plays out across this country.
I also think that you have a cartoonish view of both the African-American population and of the North Shore's politics. There are thousands of African-Americans in the Chicagoland area that could afford to live in Winnetka. Those people often choose to live in other expensive areas or at expensive properties in more diverse areas. It's a choice.
With regard to politics, affordable housing, and hypocrisy. The North Shore has trended heavily Democratic in recent years, but I would not describe most of the people living here as uber-progressive. It is the conservative-type who are more frequently opposed to affordable housing development when the topic is brought up, and conservatives typically oppose "affordable housing" initiatives because they have largely been demonstrated to either not work or too complicated.
I guarantee if you call The Albion Luxury Apartments in Downtown Evanston right now, they will tell you that all of their market-rate apartments are occupied but they have below-market apartments available. But...there is supposedly a shortage of affordable housing on the North Shore.
I agree we may be talking past each other. I do not disagree that there are wealthy African-Americans who can afford to but choose not to live on the North Shore. I'm not sure how many given the statistics stated in the links I posted but certainly there are most certainly some, though this number may be shrinking as our black population continues to shrink.
But really, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about providing fair housing to millionaires. I'm talking about fair participation in the stated goal of the vast majority of affordable housing programs, which is to provide opportunity for low income families to live in high opportunity areas.
Now, I also agree with you in that these programs are questionable at best. Governmental attempts to meddle in the housing market, such as through rent control or by forcing developers to designate X% to low income end up having too many unintended consequences. Incentives are a better way. However, if we are going to have these programs and are going to keep throwing money and mandates at them, then there should be fair participation across all income levels. Restrictive zoning and high housing costs exempt certain areas from participation, and that is not fair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
