Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
the city dosent have alot of control to where the developments are. if an area is in high demand, like the look, developers will develop there.
A city can direct developments. It is called zoning and is done in most cities in Western countries. A city has a few duties and it is to protect certain houses, parks, infrastructure and areas but that is pretty much it. It is pointless to say to developers to build on the South Side because only very poor and a few insane liberals wants to live in Southern Chicago. What Chicago should have done years and years ago is to get rid of Englewood just as they got rid of Cabrini Green. Make a park out of Englewood and property values would go up and a few brave corporations would maybe develop in South Side Chicago. Those people who would live there would get vouchers or get the opportunity to move to another city. If the city of Chicago didn’t have built Cabrini Green – I’m certain that Western near North Side would have looked like Streeterville. The problem with Chicago and other cities is that they build High Ways and ugly elevated tracks instead of subways, they build social housing which leads to centralization of poverty and crime and they let the Unions push up salaries and pensions for city workers. If a city cannot even keep its streets clean from trash and grass why would anyone want to invest in a city like that? Detroit is everything what is bad with a US city – a mix of irresponsible liberalism and crony capitalism.
I did not say that interracial marriage or relationships didn’t occur – what I said is that they are not common even though they are accepted among the educated. What is significant for Sweden is that if you are culturally Swedish (for example adopted by Swedish parents) – Ethnic Swedes seems seldom have a problem that their children marry an adoptee. When it comes to immigrants or children to immigrants the tolerance level is reduced. Not because of their racial or ethnic identity but because their cultural or religious identity. Why Eritrians and Ethiopians marry Swedes I actually do not know.
LOL, I know this is subjective but I'll ask anyway. Speaking of people,you were able to see lots of people in Chicago, so I'm sure you were able to notice the women Without being biased, would you say that the average Swedish woman in Stockholm is still more beautiful than the women of Chicago? Just for reference, since Elin Norgeren Woods is the current face of a Swedish woman in the US, what would you say about Elin if she was in Stockholm, on a scale of 1-10, ten being the highest for comparison
LOL, I know this is subjective but I'll ask anyway. Speaking of people,you were able to see lots of people in Chicago, so I'm sure you were able to notice the women Without being biased, would you say that the average Swedish woman in Stockholm is still more beautiful than the women of Chicago? Just for reference, since Elin Norgeren Woods is the current face of a Swedish woman in the US, what would you say about Elin if she was in Stockholm, on a scale of 1-10, ten being the highest for comparison
Do we talk about ethnicities or in general? Swedish women regardless of race seem to have a higher average than American women regardless of race. This can be explained with subsidized access to health care, dentistry, healthy food and much better access of relatively cheap fashionable clothing. You never see people (if they are not immigrants) lacking teeth if they are not homeless drug addicts, have a disease, smokers or is very old. When it comes to fashion the Swedish market is used as test-country for new productions. Sweden has plenty of international (and in United States filthy expensive for some reason) clothing-brands.
Comparing ethnic Swedish women and non-Hispanic White American women I think ethnic Swedish women are on average more attractive in general. If this because genetics or social explanations I think it can be both – even though all ethnicities has beautiful women.
Elin Nordgren should not be considered to be an average woman in Sweden. She is a professional model and was born with great looks. She also comes from an upper-class family in Stockholm and later lived with a super-rich golfer. She has had the time and money to take care of her appearance. From a scale from 1-10 I think Nordgen would be considered to be an 8 or maybe even a 9.
This is some dude walking in a very central street in Downtown Stockholm – why I do not know. You see a lot of women. Some ugly and some attractive but that would give you some kind of sense how people look like. Of course, some may be tourists but you get the point.
The average would of course be higher we would go to an of the more attractive neighborhoods in downtown Stockholm but that wouldn’t give you the impression of the average Swedish woman. Yes, did I say that Sweden is cold 9 months a year so people wear heavy winter-cloths (Yes, the one you they have on Antarctica in movies) or in the spring and autumn (which is actually not very cold) people tend to wear a thin jacket. You only see naked skin three months a year and I end up working in the summer so I don’t see anything at all.
When it comes to Chicago and Stockholm – Chicago stand no chance but I’m kind of into darker women in general so from that sense Chicago works better for me than in Stockholm. My previous experience of New York and Boston is that American-women are easy to pick up and socialize with. On all my visited to United States I have sadly, mostly socialized with college students or fairly young urban middle class. I socialize pretty much with the same kind of people here. When I as a person from Stockholm go to New York, Boston or Chicago the differences in attitudes and social behavior is not that large – though it was easy to talk with American women and they were responsive and much more easy going than Swedish women but this can be because I have been exotic in their eyes just like American men would be in Sweden.
Being a tall (compared to American men but average here), blond, blue eyes with for Americans trendy and expensive cloths makes you popular. I also have the Swedish accent, education, well-traveled and do stuff that would be “cool” in the USA but pretty average in Sweden, so I looked more “valuable” than I actually was. I went graduate school with a few Americans. Both the American women and the American men kind of “hit” a lot on the Swedes as soon they got their first “after-school” beer at fraternity. In general I think ethnic Scandinavians from Denmark, Sweden and Norway are more attractive to white American than they are to us. We are from the “homeland” and why white Americans kind of find that interesting.
The only thing I kind of find peculiar with white Americans is that they still circumcise their male children (which is not a European custom), are evangelical Christians, very few have been outside North America even among the middle class, talk like teenagers, talk about sex and laugh about sexist jokes, have an adult-childish behavior, dress badly and still drink sugared soft drinks. I haven’t had a regular soft drink – not even a Coke for years. When you have diet products why buy anything else? Drinking sugared soft drinks is like smoking. Who smokes in 2014?
Last edited by Sconesforme; 05-12-2014 at 09:04 PM..
A city can direct developments. It is called zoning and is done in most cities in Western countries. A city has a few duties and it is to protect certain houses, parks, infrastructure and areas but that is pretty much it. It is pointless to say to developers to build on the South Side because only very poor and a few insane liberals wants to live in Southern Chicago. What Chicago should have done years and years ago is to get rid of Englewood just as they got rid of Cabrini Green. Make a park out of Englewood and property values would go up and a few brave corporations would maybe develop in South Side Chicago.
LOL this is hilarious - I don't think you truly know what Englewood is. Englewood is a neighborhood of over 3 sq miles, and not a public housing project. Cabrini Green was a housing project owned by the city that's something like 1/10 of 1 sq mile (i.e. 30X smaller than Englewood). Not even close to the same things and Englewood was once a normal neighborhood. The city couldn't have "gotten rid of" Englewood unless it wanted to literally displace all 90,000+ people who were living there by somehow buying their private property. I'm sure that would go over well......that would be an utter disaster to put it lightly.
Quote:
If the city of Chicago didn’t have built Cabrini Green – I’m certain that Western near North Side would have looked like Streeterville.
Doubtful. The area near Cabrini Green was bad before it was even built. It was called Little Hell and basically the Sicilian part of town. There used to be a Brown Line stop at Division Street there which was basically torn down in the late 1940s and a big part of it had to do with people being robbed by neighborhood residents there on the train/platform.
And really, in the beginning Cabrini Green was supposedly fairly nice. But like a number of housing projects in the US - they started out OK and ended up poorly (see Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis).
Even 20-25 years ago, River North was a sleazy neighborhood and apparently in the 1970s you could find adult theaters and porn shops in parts of Gold Coast (south of Division). I appreciate your views on the city after having visited once for a small period of time, but you may want to brush up on your history (which is more vast than you may think).
Last edited by marothisu; 05-12-2014 at 09:01 PM..
LOL this is hilarious - I don't think you truly know what Englewood is. Englewood is a neighborhood of over 3 sq miles, and not a public housing project. Cabrini Green was a housing project owned by the city that's something like 1/10 of 1 sq mile (i.e. 30X smaller than Englewood). Not even close to the same things and Englewood was once a normal neighborhood. The city couldn't have "gotten rid of" Englewood unless it wanted to literally displace all 90,000+ people who were living there by somehow buying their private property. I'm sure that would go over well......that would be an utter disaster to put it lightly.
Doubtful. The area near Cabrini Green was bad before it was even built. It was called Little Hell and basically the Sicilian part of town. There used to be a Brown Line stop at Division Street there which was basically torn down in the late 1940s and a big part of it had to do with people being robbed by neighborhood residents there on the train/platform.
And really, in the beginning Cabrini Green was supposedly fairly nice. But like a number of housing projects in the US - they started out OK and ended up poorly (see Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis).
Even 20-25 years ago, River North was a sleazy neighborhood and apparently in the 1970s you could find adult theaters and porn shops in parts of Gold Coast (south of Division). I appreciate your views on the city after having visited once for a small period of time, but you may want to brush up on your history (which is more vast than you may think).
I know that Englewood is a residential area and not public housing. I just don’t know how to make something of it. What I can see in the statistics people are living and may properties should be in the hands of the city – but cost wise it would be difficult to change things there. I believe the city spent 250 million dollars on a community campus - instead they should have made that part of town greener with parks. I really don’t know. I didn’t know about what Cabrini Green was before it was built or the River North.
So what do you think Chicago should do? What is your solution?
I know that Englewood is a residential area and not public housing. I just don’t know how to make something of it. What I can see in the statistics people are living and may properties should be in the hands of the city – but cost wise it would be difficult to change things there. I believe the city spent 250 million dollars on a community campus - instead they should have made that part of town greener with parks. I really don’t know. I didn’t know about what Cabrini Green was before it was built or the River North.
So what do you think Chicago should do? What is your solution?
So then you know it's not smart to compare a big neighborhood like Englewood which once had almost 100,000 people to Cabrini Green which at most had 15,000 people. They aren't even close to the same things. What should be done? You're asking what should be done with a part of town that is very bad with entrenched gang stuff as if it would be some easy solution. Even if you wanted to gentrify it, it would take awhile.
The city has already taken steps towards some stuff, though it's not going to result in gentrification anytime soon. There are a bunch of vacant lots in Englewood (and some surrounding areas) that the city is offering for $1. The catch is that you must already own property on that block, not be in debt to the city and they must keep the zoning as residential and not sell it for 5 years and pay property taxes (which for vacant land wouldn't be that much). I believe they have to do good upkeep too. I believe you can also buy if you are a registered non-profit in the area. There's 4000 of these lots for sale and about 500 of them so far have received applications - mostly to make community gardens and extend yards. There is plan that was unveiled a few months ago to basically beautify parts of the south side which are in need of it and this is part of the plan. They will extend this to some areas of the west side too. Also near Kennedy King College will go a Whole Foods, which ...is rather interesting.
It's not an easy solution though and it's not going to get better magically overnight. Even the Cabrini Green area is finally starting to be redeveloped, slowly. I think to improve some other areas, you have to improve a certain part of the job sector.
I like what Theaster Gates is doing in another bad neighborhood - the part of town he's in has seen a drastic improvement in safety but also functionality. I'd like to see him do a similar thing in a so-so part of Englewood
Even 20-25 years ago, River North was a sleazy neighborhood and apparently in the 1970s you could find adult theaters and porn shops in parts of Gold Coast (south of Division).
I'm old enough to remember River North in the 80's and it was definitely not a "sleazy neighborhood". It wasn't as desirable as now, but it was still rather nice and expensive. It actually felt better in some ways, in that it had a very strong gallery presence, and was less residential, so felt a little bit like a Midwest version of Soho/Tribeca. It was quiet, with few tourists, but kind of chic.
And I don't think "porn shops" means an area is "bad". The Loop had basically a "porn district" up until 20 years ago. Paris and London have porno districts in some of the most expensive real estate on earth. Manhattan still has porno stores if you know where to look. "Adult theaters" closed not because of gentrification but because they became almost useless in the age of home video, and even more useless once we reached the internet age.
^ Not according to Rick Bayless when he first opened up his first restaurant. He describes it as "very, very sleazy." I remember visiting in the early 90s and thinking it was kind of ehhhhhh. Porn shops don't mean "bad" - I agree. I was trying to paint a picture of what an area was like to someone who only visited the city once for a short period of time and may not be able to imagine how things once were.
I'm old enough to remember River North in the 80's and it was definitely not a "sleazy neighborhood". It wasn't as desirable as now, but it was still rather nice and expensive. It actually felt better in some ways, in that it had a very strong gallery presence, and was less residential, so felt a little bit like a Midwest version of Soho/Tribeca. It was quiet, with few tourists, but kind of chic.
And I don't think "porn shops" means an area is "bad". The Loop had basically a "porn district" up until 20 years ago. Paris and London have porno districts in some of the most expensive real estate on earth. Manhattan still has porno stores if you know where to look. "Adult theaters" closed not because of gentrification but because they became almost useless in the age of home video, and even more useless once we reached the internet age.
Cities in general were more sleezy-looking than they are now because certain services are "needed" by society (note the quotes) that find their way anywhere you have sufficient people.
The Near North and Near West (and Near South) had a more visible presence of these because they had a lot of SROs and boarding houses catering to single, disenfranchised men, who are the primary customers of those services and lived there to be near the warehousing businesses that used to occupy all the warehouses that used to exist there. By the mid-1980s River North was well on its way to becoming what it is today, and it was really the 1970s where it was at its worst, as warehousing had collapsed in the central area but loft living by artists in Chicago hadn't really hit its stride. And, to be sure, it was "bad" in a much different way than, say, Englewood is "bad." Englewood is bad mainly because of drug gangs creating a culture of direct threat to those "in the game," and an indirect threat to pretty much anyone else in the vicinity. The "Near" parts of downtown were bad in the sense that any city's "skid row" is bad - there are a lot of marginal men around who often have too much time on their hands and too little money and some of them act out either to get money or get alcohol or get sex or simply out of anger at their state of affairs or a residual mental illness. When I first came to Chicago, I was interning at a half-way house in the West Loop near Madison and Morgan. It was 1995 and Oprah was at her peak of popularity and the Presidential Towers were still relatively new and I still got crackheads asking to suck my dick for menial amounts of money while walking in the area. I doubt that happens anymore in the West Loop.
But there are still some remnants of that element of the "Near" areas - the Pacific Garden moved out of the South Loop, but the Lawson House YMCA still exists on Chicago Avenue for now, there is an SRO on Wells near Ohio. To a certain extent the existence of the HoJo and Ohio House motels reflects that - even when I first moved into River North, there were frequent prostitution busts at both. I haven't seen one of those there for a while now. There are a few dive bars left, of the sort that would have catered to down-on-their-luck men in prior decades, and a couple sex shops still exist. Even the existence of the two gay bars downtown is really a reflection of how much of a vice district that area used to be. In the 1960s, gay bars were nearly all controlled by the Mob, which gives you an idea of how much society has changed - almost nobody even thinks of gay bars as being "vice" anymore, even if they disapprove of homosexuality.
but the Lawson House YMCA still exists on Chicago Avenue for now.
It will be for awhile. A company was granted control/ownership of Lawson House last year with the agreement to keep it affordable housing for 50 years. Yes, 50 years. In the news yesterday was something about how they were going to remodel the whole thing and even put kitchens and bathrooms in each unit - expanding each unit to something like 400 sq ft. Hardly an SRO technically when they're done but possibly more in line with just plain affordable housing. But yeah, the agreement was for 50 years. It will be interesting to see what happens after that - it may be affordable housing but the types of residents there may improve. Regardless, I live pretty close to it and while the people are shady looking sometimes, they've never bothered me for anything.
But what you said before is what I was getting at - there's different types of bad. The area still had its fair share of "shady looking people" and still does in areas though not as much every year it seems.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Without being biased, would you say that the average Swedish woman in Stockholm is still more beautiful than the women of Chicago? Just for reference, since Elin Norgeren Woods is the current face of a Swedish woman in the US, what would you say about Elin if she was in Stockholm, on a scale of 1-10, ten being the highest for comparison
