Comparing NYC Neighborhoods and Chicago Neighborhoods (Berwyn, Oak Park: real estate, homes, schools)

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Sbudsky

Many of these families have belonged to a church in their neighborhood for years, send their kids to the school they went to, and have their extended family all within a few blocks-- they now have to move out to the distant suburbs........

Yeah, I remember when that happened in Austin 40 years ago.

[xavier xerxes]

Originally Posted by Sbudsky

Thanks Mikedoyleblogger, really appreciate the info. Will do more research about those hoods!

Everyone else-- I'm sorry, I put my foot in my mouth. I didn't mean to make it overly political and there's probably a better way I could've said what I said without making it about race. I am all for neighborhoods becoming safer and improving... I just have a hard time when neighborhoods become too hip and expensive for long time locals to be able to stay there. I work with low income children and families on the west side in Chicago and I'm seeing a lot of my families getting forced out of Logan Square, Humbolt Park, and West Town because they can't keep up with the climbing rents or because their landlords sold their building to a developer who will knock it down and build condos...There's getting to be fewer and fewer places where lower income people can live in Chicago and that doesn't seem fair to me. Many of these families have belonged to a church in their neighborhood for years, send their kids to the school they went to, and have their extended family all within a few blocks-- they now have to move out to the distant suburbs and are cut off from all of their supports, which sucks. I realize, though, that New York is a different city and being part of gentrification is, to some extent, inevitable...

Well it also doesnt seem fair when the opposite happens.
When a neighborhood with long time residents slides and slides and slides
downward into a ghetto. Thats what my mom watched happen
in east garfield park when she grew up in the fifties and sixties.
She grew up at homan and chicago.
And guess what? That area still is a ghetto.
It has some signs of life in some areas, but that not part yet.

Thats not fair either.
Ofcourse Life isnt fair.
Neigbhorhoods change.
Sometimes they get worse and then
they turn around and get better.
Its just change. Some can stay but some have to leave either way.
And its never fair.

Personally Im glad Chicago as a whole is improving.
The City is improving and many suburbs are declining.
Its just the sign of the times.

There are huge sweeping changes at times
in certain areas. Where my mom grew up
underwent white flight. Her family didnt leave though
and they did pay the price.
Its not fair when gentrification happens either.

But what do you think is worse to watch?
Your neighborhood getting pricier and fancier and safer
or scarier and more unsafe and deteriorating?

[Sbudsky]

Xavier--

I agree 100% with a lot of what you're saying...No one could argue that it's not really sad when a neighborhood deteriorates.

I don't see, though, why it always has to be one extreme or the other.... I think neighborhoods are at their best during the brief eclipse where diversity/vibrancy/healthy growth all converge. But, at least in Chicago, the balance will always tip and either gentrification or white flight will inevitably take over, leaving the community (whether on its way up or on its way down) socio-economically and/or ethnically homogeneous in the end. Hence why Chicago is one of the country's most segregated cities.

I'm pretty familiar with Garfield Park-- I work in that community too. It's definitely a rough place, no doubt about that... but maybe if all the middle class home owners hadn't run away at the first hint of diversification, than it might have fared better.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Sbudsky

I'm pretty familiar with Garfield Park-- I work in that community too. It's definitely a rough place, no doubt about that... but maybe if all the middle class home owners hadn't run away at the first hint of diversification, than it might have fared better.

First hint of "diversification"? What, you mean the first time you get stuck up in your own gangway? What would you know about it? Get off your high horse Mister.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Sbudsky

Xavier--

I agree 100% with a lot of what you're saying...No one could argue that it's not really sad when a neighborhood deteriorates.

I don't see, though, why it always has to be one extreme or the other.... I think neighborhoods are at their best during the brief eclipse where diversity/vibrancy/healthy growth all converge. But, at least in Chicago, the balance will always tip and either gentrification or white flight will inevitably take over, leaving the community (whether on its way up or on its way down) socio-economically and/or ethnically homogeneous in the end. Hence why Chicago is one of the country's most segregated cities.

I'm pretty familiar with Garfield Park-- I work in that community too. It's definitely a rough place, no doubt about that... but maybe if all the middle class home owners hadn't run away at the first hint of diversification, than it might have fared better.

It's probably unfair to say that middle class homeowners "ran away at the first hint of diversification." The history of Chicago neighborhoods in the '50s-'70s is definitely written from that slant of course -- with white residents, realtors and factory owners fingered as the pretty much the sole culprits of urban blight -- but maybe that was more of a sign of the liberal times than anything. I'm sure that Irishtom would offer a contrary view at least regarding Austin!

One seemingly common thread among many neighborhoods which declined, at least early on, was a high percentage of rental units. These can turn over fairly quickly and when there's a lot of them, they can create a pretty uncomfortable situation in a neighborhood over a relatively short period of time. After all, it isn't hard for a renter to simply not renew his lease and go elsewhere. Then, some homeowners in adjacent areas start to sell once the culture changes and crime goes up. Then values go down, fears of further value decline and crime increases start to grow, and the whole thing sort of goes to hell in a handbasket from there.

Examples of declining neighborhoods grew through the late '50s and early '60s so people started to understand what the first signs of coming trouble were. We had just built the interstate highway system which made it easy, and actually quite rational, to move further out. Suburbs offered the promise of a brand new home, more land, better schools, and (then) low taxes. There was easy transportation to the City by car with the new highways and cheap fuel, and traffic wasn't quite the nightmare it is today. That probably made middle class people quicker and quicker to pull the trigger over time.

Regardless, it's a complex issue, that can't really be explained away by blaming one factor.

[linicx]

When homeowners are replaced with landlords, and whole neighborhoods are 'red-lined' by banks, it is very difficult for any area to get any type of relief in the form of block grants or home improvement loans. And in the end you find some really nice people, who are dirt poor, struggling to survive down in the ghetto. The economy, poor prospects of employment and bare basic medical care does not help a family, a 'hood, or a city.

[BRU67]

Oh yes, bank redlining. That too is considered a culprit, and probably was in part but, again, you also have to consider the behavior that exists within certain demographic groups too. I'd be curious to hear Irishtom's stories about how day to day life changed in Austin during the '50s and '60s. And not just the dramatic gangway stick ups. I'd like to hear how little day to day things changed too.

[Chiguy1957]

There is no doubt in my mind that racism has played a part in shaping the way things are, but too many black people are a bit too quick to play the race card for everything. This is disingenuous at best.

There is a large swath of black culture that has glorified thug life. Minority leaders have turned a blind eye to the death and destruction in their own communities unless there are TV cameras present to give them a forum to perpetuate the blame cycle. Schools are bad? Your daughters are pregnant at 13? Your sons are gang-banging and selling drugs? Your neighborhood is an urban war zone? Blame the white establishment instead of the absence of responsible adults and parents.

Until the black community as a whole "sacks-up" and confronts these uncomfortable truths, integration on Chicago's south and west sides and bordering suburban areas will continue to be defined as the period of time between the arrival of the first minority and the departure of the last caucasian.

Sorry for the thread drift, but the "not theirs to take" comment kinda set me off with its total double standard implications and lefty guilt. I can't make any recommendations on NYC neighborhoods as I've never lived there, but I wish you luck in your quest for Utopia.

[Irishtom29]

In the 50s and 60s titanic economic and social forces caused migrations akin to the Volkswanderung of late Roman times.

To expect a white homeowner in Austin to resist such a force would be like expecting the average farmer in Gaul to stop the migration of the Franks.

[lastonestanding]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

In the 50s and 60s titanic economic and social forces caused migrations akin to the Volkswanderung of late Roman times.

To expect a white homeowner in Austin to resist such a force would be like expecting the average farmer in Gaul to stop the migration of the Franks.

It didnt happen in Austin, but it did happen in Oak Park. People did not leave Oak Park in droves when it diversified and Oak Park today is still a vibrant community.