What do you think the next suburb to experience white flight will be? (Chicago: low income, sales)

[johnm68]

I agree with Chet that "white flight" may be a thing of the past, at least in the sense of white people fleeing because of blacks, largely because the number of blacks in the Chicago area is slightly declining or remaining the same. I think what will happen is "wealth" flight, whereby middle-class homeowners will flee suburbs that are attractive to those significantly lower on the economic scale. I agree also with Lookout Kids criteria for such suburbs. In my view, I think this flight will happen in the farthest ring suburbs and exurbs, where cheap housing is more available, and where the impact of the economic crisis (foreclosures in particular) are forcing the sale of homes at fire sale prices, or leading to rentals in formerly owner occupied neighborhoods.

[GoCUBS1]

Originally Posted by johnm68

I agree with Chet that "white flight" may be a thing of the past, at least in the sense of white people fleeing because of blacks, largely because the number of blacks in the Chicago area is slightly declining or remaining the same. I think what will happen is "wealth" flight, whereby middle-class homeowners will flee suburbs that are attractive to those significantly lower on the economic scale.

Good point. I was also thinking about it as "wealth flight" rather than "white flight" issue. It's not about race but about how low-income people will start moving into towns that are "turning" and the mid-class will take flight.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by chet everett

My personal thought is that the mindset that people had way back when "block busting" was really happening is largely not a factor anymore. What happens now is mostly about the differences between really poor folks and those with some decent job.

In the few towns that have significant numbers of low skill workers with good paying jobs the "turn" of race has long since happened.

I think white flight will always exist but probably not in the standard, "linear" way that we now know it. For one thing, flighting is more expensive than its ever been. Not only do you need to sell your home in the poor area, but you then have to fund the gap in order to move into the "desirable" area. If you're smart, you won't go from, say, Westchester to Bolingbrook and potentially be in the same boat (pardon the pun) 5-10 years down the road. You'll go to Riverside, Naperville, LaGrange or Orland Park, and pay a $150-200k premium over what you just sold, plus additional real estate taxes and transportation costs going forward. Not a lot of working class or even middle class whites can feasibly do this.

Because of this, coupled with tightened lending standards and the rising percentage housing costs are taking up relative to incomes, the flight model may get turned on its head. I think what you'll start to see are some former flight areas re-gentrify (e.g. City neighborhoods, inner ring suburbs) based on transit access and housing stock and then a movement of lower income people to less accessible ex-burbs.

[ajolotl]

I would have agreed until I started reading the posts on city-data and the comment board for race-related online Tribune and Sun-Times articles. Now I'm not so sure. Ashburn is a good example.

Originally Posted by chet everett

My personal thought is that the mindset that people had way back when "block busting" was really happening is largely not a factor anymore. What happens now is mostly about the differences between really poor folks and those with some decent job.

In the few towns that have significant numbers of low skill workers with good paying jobs the "turn" of race has long since happened.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

I would have agreed until I started reading the posts on city-data and the comment board for race-related online Tribune and Sun-Times articles. Now I'm not so sure. Ashburn is a good example.

I think message boards are going to offer distorted views about a lot of things, especially the totally anonymous ones like Topix where you can just type in a name and bash away. And if they are painting an accurate picture as to which places are desirable and which are not, inertia is probably going to change that.

The list of Chicago suburbs which are widely respected in online forums and reasonably accessible to anyone upper middle class and below is actually quite short. All of us who have been posting on here for any length of time know who they are – Naperville, Downers Grove, Elmhurst, Oak Park-and-Evanston (I just count them as 1 suburb now because I don’t think I’ve ever seen them mentioned separately in response to any question as to where any homosexual, liberal, artist, "progressive," or Subaru owner should live), Riverside, River Forest, Orland Park, Frankfort, La Grange, Tinley Park, Wheaton, Park Ridge, and Glen Ellyn. Did I forget any? If I did, it’s only a few.

Combined, these 13 suburbs account for about 650,000 people, or 7% of the Chicago metropolitan area. The other 93% apparently live in more questionable digs, in one of the City’s equally few “sanctioned” neighborhoods, or places so affluent that they are not even on the radar for all but the top tier.

There are only so many houses in these 13 suburbs. If what we’re reading online is an accurate portrayal of the public’s sentiment, then they will become overpriced and/or overcrowded if they have land to build on (to the extent they haven’t already). They may even topple from desirability from their own weight (particularly the ones gobbling up surrounding fertile farmland and praries like the Cookie Monster).

Then there are a ton of suburbs which are great places to live but which do not enjoy widespread respect as of yet. I think you’ll find more of these start to emerge in the coming decades as desirable, and I think they’ll possess the traits that Lookout Kid cites, with transit access being a key. Right now, if you believe the blogs, we're decidedly trying to put 100 gallons of water into a 7 gallon bag!

[Mamama Mia]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Oak Lawn.

I don't see that happening. Beverly, Morgan Park and some of Mt. Greenwood are extremely diverse and that hasn't seemed to effect OL.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Mamama Mia

I don't see that happening. Beverly, Morgan Park and some of Mt. Greenwood are extremely diverse and that hasn't seemed to effect OL.

Beverly has only have become diverse as of recently (last 10 years or so.) It is still uncertain what will happen to all of those areas. If those areas "fall" so to speak Oak Lawn will not be far behind (20 years or so.)

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by Mamama Mia

I don't see that happening. Beverly, Morgan Park and some of Mt. Greenwood are extremely diverse and that hasn't seemed to effect OL.

Mt. Greenwood is 90% white(mainly Irish), so that don't count.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by chet everett

My personal thought is that the mindset that people had way back when "block busting" was really happening is largely not a factor anymore. What happens now is mostly about the differences between really poor folks and those with some decent job.

In the few towns that have significant numbers of low skill workers with good paying jobs the "turn" of race has long since happened.

Its not much of a factor now, but it still happens. Where do you think most of the former Southeast(east of I-57) suburban whites move to? Southwest suburbs. Just 5-6 years ago Homewood-Flossmoor Highschool was 60% white, now decrease down to 35%. The interesting part is Flossmoor is still upper middle class and 62% white. Neighboring Homewood is 73% white. Either that area is full of whites that don't have high schoolers or something is not right.

[Justabystander]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Oak Lawn.

Why Oak Lawn? People have been predicting that for 25 years, and Oak Lawn keeps improving over time ( have you been there lately? ) If anything, it would become more Arab, since the Arab population in that general area ( Burbank, Bridgeview) keeps on growing.