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.
Hi all,
I guess, in conclusion, I'd attribute the blame to racism. But, not to the vast majority of the white people but to the few who first decided to move when a black family moved into an area.
thanks for the top notch quality post that is dripping in experience and truth. my only comment is how can you blame the families that moved out once the neighborhood started changing? They were smart enough to get out before the curb. before their pet dog escaped and was killed by neighborhood gang bangers in a dog fight. they were able to leave before their son was assaulted on his way to school. they were able to leave before their house or auto was burglarized.
(in chicago) never has there been a case where an all white neighborhood has 1 or 2 different families move in and then the immigration stops. it's a sign of things to come. whether those houses open up to the market through natural causes such as death or what not, bottomline is the 1st few minority families to move in are like scouts. they'll spread the word talking about how much better their new neighborhood and new schools are and soon many others, like them or worse than them, will follow. right or wrong, that is not the point. the point is, i wouldn't blame the people who moved out because they realized the neighborhood was changing and soon would do a complete 180. they were smart enough to get out when they could and get the most bang for their buck without endangering the lives of their loved ones. you can call them racists but they ended up being 100% right about the future of their neighborhood and were smart enough to be one of the firsts to act.
I agree...the whties who did move early were definitely right - the neighborhood was destined for failure. And I also agree that neighborhoods changing in Chicago has always been an issue. But, I don't think this is the case everywhere in the U.S. And, I can only attribute this to the underlying racist tones to Chicago, in particular the SW side. In other places, I think the moving in of a single black family does not indicate the neighborhood is changing. In fact, I dont' even think people begin to think about that in other cities. But, on the southside, people's first instict is to instantly assume the neighborhood is on the downfall.
I do not believe this has to be the case. I just know that once one or two black families move into an area in Chicago; there usually is an instant upswell in homes for sale. Like I said this upswell cannot be attributed to crime; because there is no way one or two families can contribute to a neighborhood scale crime rate. And, from my experience the first famililes are usually pretty high class in their own right. They are looking to get out of their old bad areas themselves.
That is why my only thought is that people just see a black family and get scared. I think you agree with this point. But I don't think this fright is objective. It in itself is based on previous experience with black people and their affect on neighborhoods as a whole, and because of this, it is racism and generalizing. iT is not based on the individual behavior of one family alone. Of course, there will always be some bad apples.
I do think you pose a point about the "scouts." Of course if the first black families move in and have a pleasant experience they will talk about this when their friends. THe problem is not in more families moving in at a normal rate; but when the first group of white people sell at extraordinary rates, and blacks move in at an extraordinary rate. IF there was not this drastic increase in homes available, there would not be a drastic increase black population. And, the neighborhoods could remain stable.
I think Fr. Larry mentioned a good point that most of this is spread and proliferated by the word of mouth. For instance, as soon as people hear a neighborhood may be changing, people begin to move instantly because of all of the serious ramifications, as you mentioned, that can exist. IT is at this early stage that I believe a neighborhood can be saved. The intial moves must be prevented. And, if they can be, and a neighborhood can exist in realtive peace for 5-10 years, this stupidity of white flight can be prevented.
Its a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The neighborhood doesn't go down because blacks move in, but because whites leave. Still, I can't blame whites who fear losing their largest single financial investment (their home equity) and selling early. As in all financial trends, the ones who do best are the ones who participate early in the trend, not late.
There are a few successful examples of resistance of white flight: Oak Park, Hyde Park, and Beverly.
Thank you for this sincere and thoughtful post. Your story is nearly identical to literally hundreds of testimonials I've read in a variety of sources about neighborhoods like Chicago Lawn, South Shore, Roseland, Gresham, etc. I have never read much of Ashburn until the Times article. What makes Ashburn interesting to me is that it's more recent and to some degree (I thought) not totally finished yet. Of course no one blames someone for leaving to keep their family safe or protect their investment. This is why good ideas on how to manage this process collectively are so valuable, and it's what makes Beverly, Oak Park, and Hyde Park interesting cases to study. As others have pointed out for many places the choice at some point will come down to integration or decimation. There aren't a lot of other options.
So, what you are saying is that Blacks are incapable of preserving a neighborhood's prestige and order?
I'm saying, in the Chicago area, when whites move out of the neighborhood, the vast majority of financial investment leaves the neighborhood in most cases.
Its sad but true. Whites are the majority group in Chicago and also have a disproportionate share of financial assets. When whites no longer consider a neighborhood for residence or investment, that means the neighborhood has lost 70% of its "market share" in terms of potential residences and probably 95+% of "market share" in terms of potential investors.
This is definitely a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think one way to potentially stop it is to kill it before it builds steam. I mean I guess I could go preach to all these places that are beginning to change and tell people to stop; but, I don't think taht is very practical
I also agree that my story is the same is probably about 75% of the Southside's white population.
A quick though on places like Beverly, Oak Park. I think what protected these places was the inherent value these neighborhoods possessed. White people, although potentially still racist valued their homes/locations too much to even think about giving them up. From my limited experience, I know Oak Park and Beverly have extremely beautiful unique homes that maybe do not exist in places like South Shore/Gresham. I know for sure, they do not exist to as much a degree in Ashburn, which is, by the way, completely changed from my understanding. I mean think about it from a white person's perspecitve. Stay in Ashburn and potentially lose 1/2 your home's value, endanger your family; or pack up and move and start life a few more miles SW with just about the same home. Easy choice.
I think what stinks about all of this is that once neighborhoods are ruined it appears alot harder to bring them back. I mean it really appears to be a whole wave that is taking out the whole SS of Chicago, except for pockets. This is just sad.
I guess I should just move to the North Side fantasy world (Joking!)
I'm saying, in the Chicago area, when whites move out of the neighborhood, the vast majority of financial investment leaves the neighborhood in most cases.
But why is this? Is this because blacks often lack ambition and education because the government pays their bills and they know they don't have to work hard because the government foots the bill for their college tuition? since they don't have the education and can't make a decent salary, they often turn to the street life in order to make money. a large portion of the black community, compared to other groups, makes their money illegally. thus, they have no desire to contribute to society like normal people do. the last thing they will do is put money into parks, businesses, and city developments. i think blaming white people just gives the blacks a free pass for the problems that they create themselves. what are they little kids? why are they so deserving of protection and defense? with a black man in the oval office, it is time to fix the problems that plague the black communities throughout our nation and it starts with putting responsibility for these problems where it belongs.
This is definitely a self-fulfilling prophesy. I think one way to potentially stop it is to kill it before it builds steam. I mean I guess I could go preach to all these places that are beginning to change and tell people to stop; but, I don't think taht is very practical
I also agree that my story is the same is probably about 75% of the Southside's white population.
A quick though on places like Beverly, Oak Park. I think what protected these places was the inherent value these neighborhoods possessed. White people, although potentially still racist valued their homes/locations too much to even think about giving them up. From my limited experience, I know Oak Park and Beverly have extremely beautiful unique homes that maybe do not exist in places like South Shore/Gresham. I know for sure, they do not exist to as much a degree in Ashburn, which is, by the way, completely changed from my understanding. I mean think about it from a white person's perspecitve. Stay in Ashburn and potentially lose 1/2 your home's value, endanger your family; or pack up and move and start life a few more miles SW with just about the same home. Easy choice.
I think what stinks about all of this is that once neighborhoods are ruined it appears alot harder to bring them back. I mean it really appears to be a whole wave that is taking out the whole SS of Chicago, except for pockets. This is just sad.
I guess I should just move to the North Side fantasy world (Joking!)
Absolutely. If you have a good reason to stay and fight, you do. OP had (and has) good housing and good transit. HP had the University as a deep-pocketed bulwark. Can't comment much on Beverly since I don't know it very well.
These things go in waves. The near south and west sides will soon be majority white again (the 2nd ward voted in a white Alderman, replacing a black incumbent.) As always, neighborhoods in Chicago are always undergoing transition. Perhaps eventually gentrification will progress outward to Ashburn, but it might take a generation or two.
That's a good point. Further evidence is that the Jackson Park Highlands neighborhood in South Shore remains integrated to some degree. It is the only area in South Shore with a concentration of homes similar to what you would find in Bevelry or Oak Park. On the other hand Roseland had some beautiful blocks that are now all run down multi-flat conversions. Still, I don't think Roseland compares architecturally with any of the other places mentioned.
I reread The Making of the Second Ghetto regarding attempts to save the U of C from white flight. What's amazing is even with an institutional anchor as powerful as the U of C, saving the neighborhood from blight wasn't easy. I think it's safe to say that now the corner has been totally turned. I was speaking with an old-time Flossmoor resident a few months ago who nearly died laughing when I mentioned I had been considering buying a home in Flossomoor because Hyde Park was too expensive. He thought that was the irony of all ironies. If you had a Hyde Park mansion and didn't flee in the 60-70s, you'd definitely have the last laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpramire
I agree with both ajotol and sukwoo.
A quick though on places like Beverly, Oak Park. I think what protected these places was the inherent value these neighborhoods possessed. White people, although potentially still racist valued their homes/locations too much to even think about giving them up. From my limited experience, I know Oak Park and Beverly have extremely beautiful unique homes that maybe do not exist in places like South Shore/Gresham. I know for sure, they do not exist to as much a degree in Ashburn, which is, by the way, completely changed from my understanding. I mean think about it from a white person's perspecitve. Stay in Ashburn and potentially lose 1/2 your home's value, endanger your family; or pack up and move and start life a few more miles SW with just about the same home. Easy choice.
I think what stinks about all of this is that once neighborhoods are ruined it appears alot harder to bring them back. I mean it really appears to be a whole wave that is taking out the whole SS of Chicago, except for pockets. This is just sad.
I guess I should just move to the North Side fantasy world (Joking!)
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.
