U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-29-2011, 12:39 PM
 
5,026 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3207

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jandur View Post
There is a big misconception between poor and underclass areas than straight up poverty stricken. Ghetto is also a pretty broad term.

60% of Chicago isn't ghetto.
No offense to you Jandur, but seriously looking at all your posts, you really seem to define Chicago as a whole based on living in Lincoln Park.

Chicago is everything from O'Hare aiport and Edison Park down to Beverly and Mt. Greenwood (bordering Evergreen Park/Oak Lawn) east to the Indiana border and the Calumet area where Dave Matthews recently played a concert on a piece of vacant land bigger than the Loop where US Steel used to be.

This from a recent thread by username: Jzer21:

"Because the remaining 25% is good enough to offset the bad. Plus, one can easily live and work in said 25% without needing to ever visit or think about the other 75%."

This is exactly why people love Chicago so much, more than just about any other city in America is possible in Chicago to be completely oblivous to the majority of a metro area, or even the majority of a city. People love never leaving their neighborhood. This makes much easier to assume for someone who loves Chicago to assume that most of the city is like where they spend most of their time.

One poster on another Chicago thread, even stated that Chicago provides urban living by stating that one never has to go to the suburbs for anything, and they can have everything they want very close by.

In other metro areas where there is less "urban" living and people have to drive all over a metropolitan area for entertainment, shopping, etc. they have a much better sense of what the whole region is like.

Since Chicago does not have poverty stricken ghetto areas in between nice areas (at least not on the north side where you can go from Michigan Ave to Wrigley Field without stepping into a rough area) they many other cities have rough areas between popular nice areas, it easy for residents to think that the much of the city is like that.

 
Old 08-29-2011, 12:42 PM
 
46 posts, read 55,396 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jandur View Post
There is a big misconception between poor and underclass areas than straight up poverty stricken. Ghetto is also a pretty broad term.

60% of Chicago isn't ghetto.
Ghetto looks like ghetto. Empty lots, graffiti everywhere, hoodrats, people selling junk out of moving vans, garbage strewn about, the poor and working poor, flashing blue cameras, people walking in the street instead of sidewalks. Doesn't have to be all black to be ghetto. There are 3 main sides to Chicago. East is the water. It is very safe to say that the majority of both west and southsides, dozens of square miles of the city, are sketchy and have been for a long time by the looks of the map he posted. Bigger question is...do Chicagoans ignore it in hopes it wont continue even more into their precious suburbs?
 
Old 08-29-2011, 12:45 PM
 
5,026 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3207
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennydabull77 View Post
I'm gonna go with 60% ghetto/low income if not more. Took a long drive though the Chi due to a major traffic jam last weekend. Even having lived in the BURBS for some years, I guess I really didn't realize how many swaths of ghetto and gang territories there are these days. To me, the west side is almost worse in most sections than the more infamous south side. That 40% non ghetto is downtown, the vast northside and a few pockets of beautiful renewed streets. I wonder if it is worse in a way even though many blacks reportedly have moved out of the city to the inner ring suburbs.
Careful with this quote.

Quotes like this is what invites threads that others accuse of "race-baiting."

The fact is that despite the loss of housing projects, I would still say most of the African American households are those with middle class aspirations who have worked to get out of their hell hole neighborhoods and move to the suburbs. The nice areas with major AA populations in Chicago are nice, but also very expensive and priced out to those who are just coming into the middle class.

I will agree that the west side in some cases worse.

The south side is huge, and although by area it may have more acres of ghetto, it also is large enough to have beautiful neighborhoods tucked away (Beverly, Hyde Park/Kenwood) working class white neighborhoods, neighborhoods with few people because its largely industrial, etc. Simply much more variety.

On the west side, theres little of anything redeeming (Save Garfield Park consservatory) between Austin Ave, and the medical district. Plus those are a lot more apartments/tenemetnts on the west side, whereas the south side has many more areas that are more detached homes. Homeowners versus renters make a big difference.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Near Chicago
3,108 posts, read 4,964,777 times
Reputation: 1473
My opinion is 60% or a little bit more/less of the city than that is sketchy or at least have a moderate level of gang activity and violence, while a smaller percentage is truly ghetto(run down/blighted and a food desert). There are some neighborhoods in Chicago that are plentiful with gangs and graffitti, yet the neighborhood is developed and loaded with businesses/retail besides Food and Liquor stores. Little Village and Pilsen are perfect examples of this.

According to this, 609,000(22.5%) Chicagoans were living in food deserts. So you can take that into consideration

Food desert map- 5 years old though




Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 08-29-2011 at 02:21 PM..
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:18 PM
 
Location: South Side
3,608 posts, read 6,619,500 times
Reputation: 1213
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennydabull77 View Post
Ghetto looks like ghetto. Empty lots, graffiti everywhere, hoodrats, people selling junk out of moving vans, garbage strewn about, the poor and working poor, flashing blue cameras, people walking in the street instead of sidewalks. Doesn't have to be all black to be ghetto.
The problem with this entire thread is that a "ghetto" is an area that has soley one type of person. Maybe Kenilworth or parts of Winnetka would be considered ghetto.

If you are asking which parts of Chicago are depresses, low-income, high crime areas, then it is surely not 40% of the city. As others have noted, the city can be quite homogenous as to earnings levels and crime statistics, with high levels check by jowl to lower level areas.

At any rate, the inquiry is kind of idle. It is better to assess a poverty rate for the city or a violent crime rate. Low income and crime happens throughout the city and is not confined to any few areas which would allow us to make generalizations.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
2,184 posts, read 4,205,638 times
Reputation: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
Careful with this quote.

Quotes like this is what invites threads that others accuse of "race-baiting."

The fact is that despite the loss of housing projects, I would still say most of the African American households are those with middle class aspirations who have worked to get out of their hell hole neighborhoods and move to the suburbs. The nice areas with major AA populations in Chicago are nice, but also very expensive and priced out to those who are just coming into the middle class.

I will agree that the west side in some cases worse.

The south side is huge, and although by area it may have more acres of ghetto, it also is large enough to have beautiful neighborhoods tucked away (Beverly, Hyde Park/Kenwood) working class white neighborhoods, neighborhoods with few people because its largely industrial, etc. Simply much more variety.

On the west side, theres little of anything redeeming (Save Garfield Park consservatory) between Austin Ave, and the medical district. Plus those are a lot more apartments/tenemetnts on the west side, whereas the south side has many more areas that are more detached homes. Homeowners versus renters make a big difference.
The Island in Austin isn't that bad, and Pilsen is changing for the better, at least on the east part.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 02:53 PM
 
1,210 posts, read 1,583,949 times
Reputation: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
No offense to you Jandur, but seriously looking at all your posts, you really seem to define Chicago as a whole based on living in Lincoln Park.

Chicago is everything from O'Hare aiport and Edison Park down to Beverly and Mt. Greenwood (bordering Evergreen Park/Oak Lawn) east to the Indiana border and the Calumet area where Dave Matthews recently played a concert on a piece of vacant land bigger than the Loop where US Steel used to be.

This from a recent thread by username: Jzer21:

"Because the remaining 25% is good enough to offset the bad. Plus, one can easily live and work in said 25% without needing to ever visit or think about the other 75%."

This is exactly why people love Chicago so much, more than just about any other city in America is possible in Chicago to be completely oblivous to the majority of a metro area, or even the majority of a city. People love never leaving their neighborhood. This makes much easier to assume for someone who loves Chicago to assume that most of the city is like where they spend most of their time.

One poster on another Chicago thread, even stated that Chicago provides urban living by stating that one never has to go to the suburbs for anything, and they can have everything they want very close by.

In other metro areas where there is less "urban" living and people have to drive all over a metropolitan area for entertainment, shopping, etc. they have a much better sense of what the whole region is like.

Since Chicago does not have poverty stricken ghetto areas in between nice areas (at least not on the north side where you can go from Michigan Ave to Wrigley Field without stepping into a rough area) they many other cities have rough areas between popular nice areas, it easy for residents to think that the much of the city is like that.
No offense taken, and I can see why you might make that assumption. *I* live in Lincoln Park and I realize the whole city doesn't. I also am very aware that there are lots of very bad areas. However I stand by my statement that 60% of the city is not ghetto.

So, while you assume that I think Chicago=near north side you yourself are really just making an ill-informed assumption yourself. Move along.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
2,350 posts, read 1,728,994 times
Reputation: 1898
Reading threads like this reminds me of what a sad, divided and overrated city Chicago is. How many middle class folks are going to argue over what parts of town are' ghetto' or not? This place really is a joke. The best thing about it is the food.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Chicago (from pittsburgh)
2,548 posts, read 2,165,149 times
Reputation: 1800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider View Post
Reading threads like this reminds me of what a sad, divided and overrated city Chicago is. How many middle class folks are going to argue over what parts of town are' ghetto' or not? This place really is a joke. The best thing about it is the food.
Judge the 3rd largest city in America by a few internet forum posters. Yay.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 03:24 PM
 
5,026 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426 View Post
My opinion is 60% or a little bit more/less of the city than that is sketchy or at least have a moderate level of gang activity and violence, while a smaller percentage is truly ghetto(run down/blighted and a food desert). There are some neighborhoods in Chicago that are plentiful with gangs and graffitti, yet the neighborhood is developed and loaded with businesses/retail besides Food and Liquor stores. Little Village and Pilsen are perfect examples of this.

According to this, 609,000(22.5%) Chicagoans were living in food deserts. So you can take that into consideration

Food desert map- 5 years old though


The whole "food desert"t thing is rediculous. In wealthy sprawlin suburban or exurban areas where the nearest grocery store is two miles away, is that a "food desert"?

The reason why I ask that is because some of those areas are gorgeous, but more suburban in character (Beverly). But people like it that.

The whole food desert thing is rediculous. Unless, maybe you are talking about an area that is also low income where many people might not have cars.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top