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 09-01-2011, 11:00 AM
 
1,965 posts, read 2,287,738 times
Reputation: 899

Advertisements

I would say the city is about forty percent ghetto or low income bad areas. It cant be more than that. there are areas in the city that are not that nice but they are not ghetto.

 
Old 09-01-2011, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,022 posts, read 3,500,551 times
Reputation: 2827
20% of Chicagoans are living below the poverty line, although the poverty line is a pretty low bar to judge by. I'd say 25-30% of the city could be considered to be "ghetto".
 
Old 09-01-2011, 11:40 AM
 
9,170 posts, read 13,662,902 times
Reputation: 7406
One aspect is that the "ghetto" has some pretty low population density levels. The higher income, stable, nice areas are some of the densest in the city.

So land area % of the city that's "ghetto" is going to be higher than the population associated with living in bad areas. Plus I feel like people just throw in huge areas of the south side as ghetto, regardless of land usage.

I've seen maps where the food deserts and bad areas include the entire vacant area around Lake Calumet. That neighborhood of South Deering has 10 square miles, but hardly any people to speak of.
 
Old 09-01-2011, 11:59 AM
 
5,026 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3207
Heres another 2 cents of mine.

If you look at the orginal, non-derrogatory, non-offensive definition of the term ghetto, it used to specifcally refer to sections of a city where minorities or immigrants congregate because they can't afford other areas, essentially a "port of entry". Places where people who don't yet speak the language and are a bit scared of outside the neighborhood.

Anywhere in the city that is predominantly 1st generation Mexican would fit the original, non-derrogatory meaning of the word "ghetto."
 
Old 09-01-2011, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Andersonville, Chicago
2,187 posts, read 3,398,800 times
Reputation: 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
Heres another 2 cents of mine.

If you look at the orginal, non-derrogatory, non-offensive definition of the term ghetto, it used to specifcally refer to sections of a city where minorities or immigrants congregate because they can't afford other areas, essentially a "port of entry". Places where people who don't yet speak the language and are a bit scared of outside the neighborhood.

Anywhere in the city that is predominantly 1st generation Mexican would fit the original, non-derrogatory meaning of the word "ghetto."
Though I like the reasoning, I'm not completely sure of it.

For instance, Albany Park is a known 'port of entry' for immigrants. They have housing coalitions and multi-cultural programs specifically for this subset.

However, I'm not sure I'd call Albany Park a 'ghetto'. It sure is crappy in some parts, but I've never gotten the warm fuzzy vibe that I feel at Cicero and Lake while I was living in Albany Park.

As it's been said, 'ghetto' is more than anything a state of mind these days. I have trailer trash relatives in the suburbs that I consider to be ghetto, yet they are not living in abject poverty.

Really, the thread should be re-titled to "Realistically, what percentage of Chicago lives in astounding poverty?"

Then you could begin to use statistics and facts. Otherwise you're race-baiting.
 
Old 09-01-2011, 01:43 PM
 
5,026 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3207
My point of my post was merely to point out that ghetto simply meant something different originally.

More of less: a port of entry.

That was all. No race baiting and nothing offensive. Simply pointing out that ghetto meant something that was not offensive.
 
Old 09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
 
9,170 posts, read 13,662,902 times
Reputation: 7406
Well the word "ghetto" mean very different things depending on where you are and at what time period is in question. I normally think of European WWII ghetto's when I hear the word.

They are usually places of very high population density where one group is forced or compelled to live for one reason or another.

In the USA it's normally a place that probably has a lower population density than the stable areas of that specific city (although since our ghettos are usually within central cities, they often have densities higher than suburban areas, which wouldn't even be called "urban" in much of the world).

Definitions:

The term ghetto was originally used in Venice to describe the area where Jews were compelled to live. A ghetto is now described as an overcrowded urban area often associated with a specific ethnic or racial population.[1]

*As ports of illegal entry for racial minorities, and immigrant racial minorities.
*When the majority uses compulsion (typically violence, hostility, or legal barriers) to force minorities into particular areas.
*When economic conditions make it too difficult for minority members to live in non-minority areas.
*When the minority actively chooses to segregate itself physically and socially from the majority.[5]

Englewood population:
Peak: 97,000
1990: 47,000
2000: 40,000
2010: 30,000

In the USA the ghettos normally empty out at this day in age. In the European sense, a ghetto in Chicago would be Little Village, because it's where a group is actively choosing to segregate itself in a high density area.
 
Old 09-01-2011, 03:55 PM
 
5,026 posts, read 5,857,784 times
Reputation: 3207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Well the word "ghetto" mean very different things depending on where you are and at what time period is in question. I normally think of European WWII ghetto's when I hear the word.

They are usually places of very high population density where one group is forced or compelled to live for one reason or another.

In the USA it's normally a place that probably has a lower population density than the stable areas of that specific city (although since our ghettos are usually within central cities, they often have densities higher than suburban areas, which wouldn't even be called "urban" in much of the world).

Definitions:

The term ghetto was originally used in Venice to describe the area where Jews were compelled to live. A ghetto is now described as an overcrowded urban area often associated with a specific ethnic or racial population.[1]

*As ports of illegal entry for racial minorities, and immigrant racial minorities.
*When the majority uses compulsion (typically violence, hostility, or legal barriers) to force minorities into particular areas.
*When economic conditions make it too difficult for minority members to live in non-minority areas.
*When the minority actively chooses to segregate itself physically and socially from the majority.[5]

Englewood population:
Peak: 97,000
1990: 47,000
2000: 40,000
2010: 30,000

In the USA the ghettos normally empty out at this day in age. In the European sense, a ghetto in Chicago would be Little Village, because it's where a group is actively choosing to segregate itself in a high density area.
This is exactly what I was referring to.
 
Old 09-01-2011, 06:41 PM
 
2,749 posts, read 2,207,564 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Noblesville, like a small-scale Naperville, at least has some charm and old-school charisma in its downtown core. Carmel is a virtual sea of McMansions and other aesthetic vapidness.
Carmels changed a lot of the years; more roundabouts per capita probably than anywhere else and creating developments that are walkable and have an old town feel to them even though it's new. Granted, I'm not a fan of Carmel or Hamilton County for that matter but I think Carmel has actually been taken over by Zionsville by a slight margin as well as Boone County surpassing Hamilton county as Indiana's wealthiest county
 
Old 09-01-2011, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Chicago
36,595 posts, read 57,867,463 times
Reputation: 25614
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
Carmels changed a lot of the years; more roundabouts per capita probably than anywhere else and creating developments that are walkable and have an old town feel to them even though it's new. Granted, I'm not a fan of Carmel or Hamilton County for that matter but I think Carmel has actually been taken over by Zionsville by a slight margin as well as Boone County surpassing Hamilton county as Indiana's wealthiest county
I'm a fan of the roundabouts. That's about the only thing I like about Carmel. I know Carmel is pursuing "new urbanism" development downtown, but just like every other example of this development style I've seen, it looks and feels contrived. It's better than endless strip malls but it still feels sterile compared to cities whose downtown business districts developed organically.
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