Spike Lee and Gentrification: Chicago Issue (Paris, Manhattan: fit in, condo, crime)

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Amen. All gentrification symbolizes is poverty being transported to some other area. and when the fad of urban living fades, the process will reverse itself..

America does not need any more "boutique" cities. Enough already.

A look at every other first-world country on the planet would suggest that this "fad" is no such thing.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Besides the river area, what are the new gentrifying areas in Chicago?

Logan Square is really the only neighborhood where development and increasing rents are rapid/large enough to spur large scale displacement of long-term lower income residents/businesses.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Revitalize neighborhoods, revitalize people, but do not gentrify.

"revitalize people"?!?! What does that even mean? Re-education camps or something?

There are certainly larger issues surrounding things like affordable housing, social services, and solid public education that need to be available to every resident of Chicago. Those things would make the city a better place for everyone to live in, but they would do almost nothing to slow the gentrification of neighborhoods.

Spike Lee is the perfect example - he's made millions and could contribute a lot to where he grew up. He hasn't. He can live wherever he wants, and has chosen to live on the Upper East Side and send his kids to private schools. That's pretty typical for anyone who has grown up in a disadvantaged neighborhood and goes on to make enough money to be able to live somewhere else. Successful people fleeing neighborhoods does more to kill off the history and culture of a neighborhood than developers. I spent a lot of time tutoring kids at Roberto Clemente in the mid-90's, and not a single one of those kids stayed in Humboldt Park after they left for college. More than half left the city entirely, and the ones who stayed in the city either moved to neighborhoods like Lakeview or are currently driving up real estate prices in neighborhoods like Pilsen and Avondale. I suppose they're gentrifiers.

It's also important to remember that for every developer who is buying a place to build condos there's someone who's selling that property. Very frequently that person is someone who invested quite a bit of time and money into their neighborhood and property. Do you tell them they can't sell their place for a profit when they want to retire or move? Ultimately any attempt to directly stop gentrification means telling people they can't leave a neighborhood if they want to. I see no reasonable or justifiable way to do that.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I agree with you, but I think Chicago as a boutique city is greatly overblown. The bungalow belts are chock full of pretty regular folk. If there's any part of the City I think is going to unexpectedly get all swanky, it's all along the river. The day the City finally starts disinfecting the water, it's game on for developers.

I don't really think of Chicago as being a boutique city, but SF and NYC ( read: Manhattan) certainly qualify, and Boston is well on its way, with DC not far behind..

Also, many of those currently living in the gentrifying neighborhoods don't have the opportunity to "cash out" , as they 1) don't have any property to sell, and 2) can't afford to move anyway. Gentrification is not always the "win-win" situation that proponents are always arguing for..

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by Attrill

"revitalize people"?!?! What does that even mean? Re-education camps or something?

There are certainly larger issues surrounding things like affordable housing, social services, and solid public education that need to be available to every resident of Chicago. Those things would make the city a better place for everyone to live in, but they would do almost nothing to slow the gentrification of neighborhoods.

Spike Lee is the perfect example - he's made millions and could contribute a lot to where he grew up. He hasn't. He can live wherever he wants, and has chosen to live on the Upper East Side and send his kids to private schools. That's pretty typical for anyone who has grown up in a disadvantaged neighborhood and goes on to make enough money to be able to live somewhere else. Successful people fleeing neighborhoods does more to kill off the history and culture of a neighborhood than developers. I spent a lot of time tutoring kids at Roberto Clemente in the mid-90's, and not a single one of those kids stayed in Humboldt Park after they left for college. More than half left the city entirely, and the ones who stayed in the city either moved to neighborhoods like Lakeview or are currently driving up real estate prices in neighborhoods like Pilsen and Avondale. I suppose they're gentrifiers.

It's also important to remember that for every developer who is buying a place to build condos there's someone who's selling that property. Very frequently that person is someone who invested quite a bit of time and money into their neighborhood and property. Do you tell them they can't sell their place for a profit when they want to retire or move? Ultimately any attempt to directly stop gentrification means telling people they can't leave a neighborhood if they want to. I see no reasonable or justifiable way to do that.

That's why people who haven't completely lost their judgment bristle at rants like Spike's. Here's a rich guy who left Brooklyn excoriating "rich people" (rich, meaning they're not on welfare -- most of them are nowhere near rich) for moving into Brooklyn. The hypocrisy would be astounding if it weren't so predictable.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

That's why people who haven't completely lost their judgment bristle at rants like Spike's. Here's a rich guy who left Brooklyn excoriating "rich people" (rich, meaning they're not on welfare -- most of them are nowhere near rich) for moving into Brooklyn. The hypocrisy would be astounding if it weren't so predictable.

What you failed to mention is that Spike Lee's definition of ''rich people'' is ''white people''. Somehow, no one seems to have a problem with this, especially the national media. Spike Lee's translation is ''we don't want crackers in my neighborhood." Then there's Rosie Perez on CCN going on about how someone was calling the police on her because she was shoveling her walk; gee, Rosie, sure beats having a gun pointed and you, maybe even being used to kill you, when Brooklyn was ''changing''.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Aleking

Logan Square is really the only neighborhood where development and increasing rents are rapid/large enough to spur large scale displacement of long-term lower income residents/businesses.

Right, Chicago isn't having as a big a gentrification ''problem'' as New York; the Bronx is next.

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Right, Chicago isn't having as a big a gentrification ''problem'' as New York; the Bronx is next.

yep, they aren't even in the same stratosphere

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by Kamms

What you failed to mention is that Spike Lee's definition of ''rich people'' is ''white people''. Somehow, no one seems to have a problem with this, especially the national media. Spike Lee's translation is ''we don't want crackers in my neighborhood." Then there's Rosie Perez on CCN going on about how someone was calling the police on her because she was shoveling her walk; gee, Rosie, sure beats having a gun pointed and you, maybe even being used to kill you, when Brooklyn was ''changing''.

In my neighborhood we have these imbeciles who blast their car horns for several minutes when picking someone up instead of using their cell phones or just walking 50 feet and ringing the doorbell. A true "I'm on the bottom of society, so f*** everybody" maneuver if I've ever seen one. I confronted one of these people (politely, given the circumstances) and she gave me a scowl of pure bitterness and muttered, "this neighborhood's changed, man, this neighborhood's changed." Indeed it has. Bye, won't miss you.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

In my neighborhood we have these imbeciles who blast their car horns for several minutes when picking someone up instead of using their cell phones or just walking 50 feet and ringing the doorbell. A true "I'm on the bottom of society, so f*** everybody" maneuver if I've ever seen one. I confronted one of these people (politely, given the circumstances) and she gave me a scowl of pure bitterness and muttered, "this neighborhood's changed, man, this neighborhood's changed." Indeed it has. Bye, won't miss you.

Like I stated before, if you're white (Indian or Asian), went to school, have a job etc., it's your fault these people are on the bottom of society. Of course, the real reason is that, as in your example, this nit-wit doesn't have enough common sense (thereby lacking self-respect and respect for others) to use her cell phone or ringing the bell; this is why she's on the bottom rung. It's still all your fault though.