Chicago's decline (Brooklyn: low income, renter, violent crime)

[EugeneBKLYN]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Excellent point. It's popular to bash yuppies but by and large, they're the ones responsible for the revitalization of the city's neighborhoods that we're talking about here. Say what you will about them but at least they're fixing up decaying and forgotten neighborhoods, giving new life to what is built up already and using public transportation. That's more socially responsible than going out the ex-burbs and adding to global warming and continuing the Balkanization of the area. I think they've been generally a positive force in Chicagoland.

I don't know about Chicago, but they're simultaniously raising rents all around NYC.
Someone joked, "we need a couple of muggings over here, you know, to lower the cost of living."

I recall early 90s New York being alot grittier, but I really had no bad experiences with anybody. I used to even hang out with crip members on the local basketball court and it was all pretty chill. And 2 bedroom apartments were 700/m.

If I had some bad experiences then I'd probably think differently.

[sarwiz]

But, if Daley would respect our 2nd amendment rights, the gunfire would diminish also. Recently Chicago was rated #3 overall in crime in the US. Not a good place to live.

[j33]

Originally Posted by EugeneBKLYN

I used to even hang out with crip members on the local basketball court and it was all pretty chill.

My brother tried that once in an old neighborhood I used to live in (even after I told him that the kids that played basketball down the street were no good) and ended up with a gun in his face and a threat against his life, it doesn't always work out 'chill' (I don't care if they were playing 'scare the white kid', it was an a*****e thing to do).

I do understand the frustration with gentrification, I've been chased out of a few neighborhoods because of it, and will probably be chased out of this neighborhood. But I'm quite cynical about what I often see is the young hipster loathing of the 'yuppie' and the romaticization of the 'gritty neighborhood'. I don't want to live in a cookie cutter subdivision, but I don't want to go to bed listening to gunfire either.

Oh and, sarwiz, if you would interview Chicago residents, I'd venture to say the VAST majority of us like his stance on gun control. I know I do, I don't buy that 'an armed society is a polite society' bs, just take a look at Iraq.

[nanannie]

"Yuppies" usually means $ and success.I would guess the people who just have to bash them are the people who WISH they had $ and success

[j33]

nanannie -- not necessarily. There is an understandable disdain to what is happening to some of the older neighborhoods in the name of 'gentrification'. I've stated many times I do not have any angst per say against 'the yuppie', in fact I probably am one. But what I see here, is that there are certain group of people who seem to be gobbling up the ugly cookie cutter condo boxes that older small two-flats and cottages are being torn down to build. These people will then move in to the neighborhood and will not say 'hi' to anyone on the street (in and one very memorial case, clutched her person and scuttled indoors when a friend of mine acknowledged her existence when walking past one morning), they go into the corner tavern and try and order a martini with a credit card, and then complain to the city that your establishment is a nuisance to the neighborhood and try and get you shut down in the name of 'we want a more upscale feel to the neighborhood' (when they out they can do neither there). I'm all for people moving into a neighborhood and taking part in making it a more livable place for everyone, but that, in my opinion does not involve trying to shut down corner taverns (unless they are fronts for drugs, which I've seen, I'm all for shutting those down) and trying to drive out pushcart vendors or anything that is perfectly legal but just seen as 'unsavory' to a certain sort of prada wearing woman (or man). Not everyone is interested in being 'upscale', some of us are okay with a shot and a beer down the street, let us be too.

Lets just say that there used to be a known drug house across the street where I live, they torn it down and put 500k condos there. I prefer the residents of the 500k condos to the criminals that hung out there before, but I sort of wish there was a third way.

[nanannie]

You make good points,all certainly agreeable with me.Its just silly for all of us to make such generalizatins of a group of people("I hate yuppies") /I know very very wealthy people who buy clothes from target,live in the same house for 40 years,and wouldnt know(or care) about "prada" from 'jc penny',Are they yuppies because they are wealthy?,and I know many people who "pretend" to be yuppies who live way over their means to wear prada. Are they yuppies ? I kind of think its almost equal both ways.And,No one wants to live by a drug house,('cept a druggie),,,but I saw my old very safe neighborhood destroyed by McMansions only because bungalows are not "in"..Dont we all just like "Nice" folks,that work ,nice kids,obey the laws,keep up a lawn,are considerate of the neighbors ,,and who cares what they wear? Judgements are a slippery slope--You wouldnt dislike someone who wears a shirt from Sears,,but you can dislike someone who wears prada,,,silly

[j33]

nanannie -- I believe you misunderstood me. I do not care what people wear, I've got many friends who wear designer clothes and are fine people, I care how people treat their neighbors and neighborhood. Hell, I sometimes where designer clothes if I can find them cheap enough, someone is probably looking at me today thinking ... 'hrmph, she can afford $300 CYDWQ shoes, stupid yuppie, not knowing I paid $30 for them at the shop down the street', that is not what I meant by my post at all, sorry for not making that clear.

[nanannie]

J33,I Someone posted about hateing yuppies,I am not sure what the problam is with yuppies,maybe I dont understand why iyuppies are so negative to deserve "hate",.thats what I was referring too l.,

[Chi2NYC?]

Originally Posted by j33

nanannie -- not necessarily. There is an understandable disdain to what is happening to some of the older neighborhoods in the name of 'gentrification'. I've stated many times I do not have any angst per say against 'the yuppie', in fact I probably am one. But what I see here, is that there are certain group of people who seem to be gobbling up the ugly cookie cutter condo boxes that older small two-flats and cottages are being torn down to build. These people will then move in to the neighborhood and will not say 'hi' to anyone on the street (in and one very memorial case, clutched her person and scuttled indoors when a friend of mine acknowledged her existence when walking past one morning), they go into the corner tavern and try and order a martini with a credit card, and then complain to the city that your establishment is a nuisance to the neighborhood and try and get you shut down in the name of 'we want a more upscale feel to the neighborhood' (when they out they can do neither there). I'm all for people moving into a neighborhood and taking part in making it a more livable place for everyone, but that, in my opinion does not involve trying to shut down corner taverns (unless they are fronts for drugs, which I've seen, I'm all for shutting those down) and trying to drive out pushcart vendors or anything that is perfectly legal but just seen as 'unsavory' to a certain sort of prada wearing woman (or man). Not everyone is interested in being 'upscale', some of us are okay with a shot and a beer down the street, let us be too.

Lets just say that there used to be a known drug house across the street where I live, they torn it down and put 500k condos there. I prefer the residents of the 500k condos to the criminals that hung out there before, but I sort of wish there was a third way.

i also think it's sad that neighborhoods tend toward one extreme or the other, only spending a few years in any sort of in-between state (witness wicker park, as an independent coffee shop gets converted into a bank of america). sadly, i think the incentives toward upholding property values will always obstruct the "third way." in your example, i don't think it's *only* that the "yuppie" wants to be able to get a martini across the street, but s/he has a financial interest in seeing a nice establishment take the place of the tavern so the value of the property they just bought will increase (before they move out to the suburbs after the first of two children reaches school age and all that dogwalking gets tiresome).

i'm no commie, but it seems there would be some advantages to somehow de-couple property values from the neighborhood context. maybe somehow zone madatory mixed income requirements throughout the city to spread the grit evenly with the glitz? dunno.

[briarwood]

Originally Posted by EugeneBKLYN

I don't know about Chicago, but they're simultaniously raising rents all around NYC.
Someone joked, "we need a couple of muggings over here, you know, to lower the cost of living."

I recall early 90s New York being alot grittier, but I really had no bad experiences with anybody. I used to even hang out with crip members on the local basketball court and it was all pretty chill. And 2 bedroom apartments were 700/m.

If I had some bad experiences then I'd probably think differently.

Those who play with fire eventually get burned. As for "income requirements" and "Mixed-income communites", that reads to most Americans as "A criminal for every corner". Cities tried the whole "PJ's in the middle-class hoods" thing, and guess what? After 10-15 years, the whole area became one giant PJ. Sorry, I'll take Yuppies thank you very much.