Suburban decline (Chicago, Waukegan, North Chicago: condo, how much, school districts)

[oakparkdude]

A triumphant Nazi Germany might have developed atomic weapons BEFORE the US, and definitely would have developed ICBMs earlier. Unlike the Soviets, Germany generally had an edge over the Allies in military technology. Harnessing the full might of western and eastern Europe, it would have been an equal economically too.

Ultimately it results in a nuclear first strike by Nazi Germany on the United States before the US develops effective retaliatory ability. Remember German jet fighters annihilate US attempts to drop atomic bombs via strategic bombers. Cities suburbs both experience massive decline due to nuclear devastation: charming architecturally significant houses are blown apart, school systems literally crumble, and property values decline due to radioactive fallout.

[NorCal Dude]

The only constant thing in the universe is change. And change usually happens due to factors largely out of our control. That is why it is so feared.

But as long as cities have crappy schools, crime, and other quality of life issues, suburbs with always flourish.

Some suburbs stay the same, the only thing changing being the residents in age and a new family here or there. Perhaps a multi unit development here or there. (Park ridge)

Some suburbs are un recognizable to residents that lived there 50-60 years ago. (Cicero)

Some suburbs have been left for dead (Harvey)

Some suburbs have struggled in the past only to reinvent themselves and emerge as trendy. (OakPark)

Some suburbs have stayed the same and with them have retained their charm and reputation (Glencoe)

Some suburbs have stayed the same, and suburbia has moved on to bigger and newer more shiny places. (Wheeling)

Some suburbs are the Newer Shiny places . (Naperville, South Barrington)

Some suburbs are just as working class as they were 40 years ago, its just the people doing the jobs look different. (Rolling Meadows)

Some suburbs have staved of urbanity and its encroaching problems (Berwyn) others have not (Maywood)

Some suburbs have been suburbs for nearly as long as chicago has been a major rail hub ( Winnetka) other suburbs were independent satellite cities to which chiago land sprawled to it (Elgin)

Some suburbs are relatively homogeneous (Glen Ellyn) others suburbs have multiple identities with multiple demographics (Evanston)

[knitgirl]

hear, hear!

[deechee]

Oh my goodness. Where this thread going????

[deechee]

Yes, officially time to close this thread, way off topic, and now we have a dozen trolls and imitators here.

Maybe someone can start a real thread sometime soon where we can talk and not be hijacked by one of these people.... ????

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by MozartSt

Could you cut and paste example where this racism was? You seem sort of intolerant yourself, bejeeezz!!!

Here is one, I can find more.

yet the STUPID English still couldn't deal with a resurgent Germany, who were the only people capable of truly protecting Europe. Just about every single time I read about the English in world history, I inevitably take the side against them and what they did. They helped ruin South Africa too. Europe would be in better shape had Germany won WW2.

The underlined statements are hurtful to those who lost loved ones in WWII. Sure the Hitler/Nazi led Germany ruling Europe would have "protected" Europe. What a bunch of crap. Just thinly veiled anti-semetic bunch of horse-sh*#! Germany would have protected so many Europeans that they probably would have surpassed Stalin's death total given that opportunity. So unless you advocate the totalitarian, brutal reign of the Nazis (and their anti-semetic genocide) then the statements are not only WRONG but highly OFFENSIVE.

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

The only constant thing in the universe is change. And change usually happens due to factors largely out of our control. That is why it is so feared.

But as long as cities have crappy schools, crime, and other quality of life issues, suburbs with always flourish.

Some suburbs stay the same, the only thing changing being the residents in age and a new family here or there. Perhaps a multi unit development here or there. (Park ridge)

Some suburbs are un recognizable to residents that lived there 50-60 years ago. (Cicero)

Some suburbs have been left for dead (Harvey)

Some suburbs have struggled in the past only to reinvent themselves and emerge as trendy. (OakPark)

Some suburbs have stayed the same and with them have retained their charm and reputation (Glencoe)

Some suburbs have stayed the same, and suburbia has moved on to bigger and newer more shiny places. (Wheeling)

Some suburbs are the Newer Shiny places . (Naperville, South Barrington)

Some suburbs are just as working class as they were 40 years ago, its just the people doing the jobs look different. (Rolling Meadows)

Some suburbs have staved of urbanity and its encroaching problems (Berwyn) others have not (Maywood)

Some suburbs have been suburbs for nearly as long as chicago has been a major rail hub ( Winnetka) other suburbs were independent satellite cities to which chiago land sprawled to it (Elgin)

Some suburbs are relatively homogeneous (Glen Ellyn) others suburbs have multiple identities with multiple demographics (Evanston)

Some posts, which are quite relevant to the original topic of the forum get lost in a sea of posts which have wandered off topic.

I would also add that there are some newer suburbs which developed into commercial hotbeds based on the placement of the interstate highways (Schamburg, Bolingbrook), while other new suburbs have developed primarily residential (Long Grove, Hoffman Estates). As for older suburbs, some have built attractive downtowns near their RR stations to arrtact some YUPPIE types (Elmhurst, Arlington Heights), which probably provide them some stability in an era of uncertain gas prices.

[Vespatian]

Originally Posted by Sevitra

That's typical. Focus on one small locus of gentrification and forget about all the rest of the suburbs, like Franklin Park, that have gone down massively. Personally, rather than looking at a few trendy restaurants as the sign of things, look instead at the status of the high schools to see the decay and anti-culture that's taking place in the burbs.

Exactly. Look at Northlake, Franklin Park (Metra), Summit (Metra), Melrose Park (Metra), and others. These towns went from prosperity to blight rapidly. Soon to join them is Westchester and what's left of Hillside-Berkley. LaGrange is just lucky because it has Lyons Township High School.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Vespatian

Exactly. Look at Northlake, Franklin Park (Metra), Summit (Metra), Melrose Park (Metra), and others. These towns went from prosperity to blight rapidly. Soon to join them is Westchester and what's left of Hillside-Berkley. LaGrange is just lucky because it has Lyons Township High School.

Suburbs that have more urban features, such as walkability, commuter train access, proximity to the Loop, and vintage housing stocks should be ok, but they need to be mindful of the necessity of characterizing themselves as "urban" neighborhoods, which may run against the grain of how they viewed themselves in the past. Studies of younger homebuyers are showing that they may not be as into the suburban lifestyle as their parents, and that they may prefer urban living.

Put another way, the inner-ring suburbs' competition for more prosperous residents is not really Elmhurst and Naperville but, rather, City neighborhoods.

[chet everett]

It is not just "luck" it is planning or lack of it. Cheapskate towns let any developer build anything they want and don't evolve. Penny pinching small minded residents vote down referendum time and time again, don't get involved in improving schools or parks and WHAM things go to HECK mighty fast.

Even towns that have a lot going for 'em have down turns and areas that are problematic -- right now there is GLUT of empty office space in MANY areas. Other towns have crummy office that will dramatically under perform. Towns that are either too "laissez-faire" or too 'activist' can both run into BIG problems. The "hands off" towns get cheap apartment belts, crummy retail, flimsy home crammed together too densely, the "too many grand plans" towns end massively over spending, subsidize development with tax give-aways, and set themselves for huge defaults...

The keys are a BALANCE of good regulations, carried out with sensible uniformity, appropriate levels of awareness / involvement on the part of residents, a bias toward honesty, and a flexible but realistic long term view. Towns that have this, and maybe a bit of luck, fare pretty well in both excellent business cycles and poorer times.