De-Gentrification? (Chicago, Lincoln, Roscoe: violent crime, home, private schools)

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

It's a good question. One change that I'm anecdotally very aware of since the 70s is the number of white people who actually put racial diversity (high) on their list of priorities when choosing a neighborhood. This 'liberal elite' type of yuppie is of a very different mindset than the residents who fled the south side starting in the 60s. Hypocritical, self-congratulating, or whatever you want to call them they do put significant money down in semi-blighted areas. It's not immediately clear to me what would reverse that trend that doesn't exist already.

It's undeniably true that such people exist and they definitely trend towards a particular political bend. At the end of the day, though, liberal type idealism on race and diversity will never be able to trump the real world as it exists before peoples very eyes. No matter how delusionally idealistic the 'diversity seekers' may be, no matter how many academic studies they do that show that the 'up and coming neighborhood' might not be all that bad 'in theory', when the ugly side of the 'diversity' ideal starts to directly impact their quality of life, they usually shed their idealism pretty quickly and move somewhere where they can at least preach their high-minded ideals from relative safety.

Every Chicago resident under the age of 40 knows at least a couple suburban raised, deeply sheltered lillywhite idealists in their age group who moved into 'City Neighborhood X' because of it's relatively cheap cost, great location and 'exciting diversity' only to eventually learn that everything they were taught in school about 'tolerance' doesn't keep them safe in the real world.

I think that such people are the driving engine behind most gentrification efforts, however, in order for those efforts to succeed, there has to be at least a basic degree of personal security, which itself relies on a host of factors and doesn't magically spring up out of the grime just because a few idealists moved into an impoverished, black area.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

It's undeniably true that such people exist and they definitely trend towards a particular political bend. At the end of the day, though, liberal type idealism on race and diversity will never be able to trump the real world as it exists before peoples very eyes. No matter how delusionally idealistic the 'diversity seekers' may be, no matter how many academic studies they do that show that the 'up and coming neighborhood' might not be all that bad 'in theory', when the ugly side of the 'diversity' ideal starts to directly impact their quality of life, they usually shed their idealism pretty quickly and move somewhere where they can at least preach their high-minded ideals from relative safety.

Every Chicago resident under the age of 40 knows at least a couple suburban raised, deeply sheltered lillywhite idealists in their age group who moved into 'City Neighborhood X' because of it's relatively cheap cost, great location and 'exciting diversity' only to eventually learn that everything they were taught in school about 'tolerance' doesn't keep them safe in the real world.

I think that such people are the driving engine behind most gentrification efforts, however, in order for those efforts to succeed, there has to be at least a basic degree of personal security, which itself relies on a host of factors and doesn't magically spring up out of the grime just because a few idealists moved into an impoverished, black area.

This model gentrifier you have created doesn't match reality in my experience.

[ajolotl]

Nor mine. We have had a very different set of experiences.

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

This model gentrifier you have created doesn't match reality in my experience.

[Drover]

The "back to the city" movement will continue to be hampered by crappy schools until that issue gets seriously addressed. And there are too many forces protecting the status quo for that to happen any time soon. Gentrification is tenuous as long as it's driven mostly by young childless people and empty nesters. If those demographic groups shrink notably, so might the city's gentrified areas.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

It's undeniably true that such people exist and they definitely trend towards a particular political bend. At the end of the day, though, liberal type idealism on race and diversity will never be able to trump the real world as it exists before peoples very eyes. No matter how delusionally idealistic the 'diversity seekers' may be, no matter how many academic studies they do that show that the 'up and coming neighborhood' might not be all that bad 'in theory', when the ugly side of the 'diversity' ideal starts to directly impact their quality of life, they usually shed their idealism pretty quickly and move somewhere where they can at least preach their high-minded ideals from relative safety.

Every Chicago resident under the age of 40 knows at least a couple suburban raised, deeply sheltered lillywhite idealists in their age group who moved into 'City Neighborhood X' because of it's relatively cheap cost, great location and 'exciting diversity' only to eventually learn that everything they were taught in school about 'tolerance' doesn't keep them safe in the real world.

I think that such people are the driving engine behind most gentrification efforts, however, in order for those efforts to succeed, there has to be at least a basic degree of personal security, which itself relies on a host of factors and doesn't magically spring up out of the grime just because a few idealists moved into an impoverished, black area.

I don't know that such people are "the driving engine" but many of them are the part of the first recon wave into shady areas. Once they're able to establish a beachhead, idealism becomes less of a factor with each successive wave of newcomers. I can tell you this much based on personal contact with many people living in the Cabrini Green area when I was a dog walker with a lot of clients there: when the two collide head-on, idealism is no match for reality. Some were more resilient than others; some were more willing to wait it out to try to maximize the return on their emotional and/or financial investment, especially back when units in the area were appreciating at 20-30% a year. But many threw up their hands in frustration and fled for safer environs. That seems to be another area where full-bore gentrification is now in suspension mode.

However, not all gentrification has occurred or is occurring in once-poor, minority, crime-ridden areas; some were just quiet bedroom communities whose prices eventually rose to the point that only gentrifiers could afford them. The stretch from Roscoe Village up through Andersonville comes to mind, including St. Ben's, North Center, Ravenswood, and Lincoln Square. Bowmanville is next. Not a lot of idealism was needed to gentrify those areas.

[ajolotl]

No doubt. I've actually invested time recently into trying to fix this problem in my neighborhood (out of curiosity as much as anything else). From what I can tell there is nothing at all wrong with the local high school except one small thing - the students suck. Facilities look fine, most teachers are earnest and hard-working, but half of the students are thugs. Not sure how to fix that.

Originally Posted by Drover

The "back to the city" movement will continue to be hampered by crappy schools until that issue gets seriously addressed. And there are too many forces protecting the status quo for that to happen any time soon. Gentrification is tenuous as long as it's driven mostly by young childless people and empty nesters. If those demographic groups shrink notably, so might the city's gentrified areas.

[Humboldt1]

I think the inner suburbs have in many cases already become the new slums. One can just look at areas like Melrose Park, Bellwood, and Northlake to see this.

You are also seeing this on the south side but I will let someone who is more familiar with these areas speak of what is happening to areas like Calumet City.

I agree that some of the ex-burbs are at risk too, though these areas will never get really bad. The simple reason: YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CAR TO LIVE IN AN EX-BURB. Sure, there are exceptions, but generally this is true.

For this reason alone, you will not see far-flung suburbs without much public transportation getting a flood of former CHA residents.

I am hardly an idealist and I am one of those looking to gentrify my neighborhood. Mostly, though, I have decided to focus east of Humboldt Park and just rent out the building I have as gentrification is going to be slow to come to my area. Humboldt Park will never be an area I would choose to live in apart from the investment opportunity. Once I get my next building, I will end up living in a Logan Square/Bucktown type of area in one of the units.

The posters make a good point as most of those moving back to the city are only "visitors". Once we have kids most of us wouldn't allow our kids to be enrolled in CPS, for those of us who have a choice.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

No doubt. I've actually invested time recently into trying to fix this problem in my neighborhood (out of curiosity as much as anything else). From what I can tell there is nothing at all wrong with the local high school except one small thing - the students suck. Facilities look fine, most teachers are earnest and hard-working, but half of the students are thugs. Not sure how to fix that.

You fix that by repairing the moral health of the communities that produce thugs. But that's way too thorny of an issue to see it happen any time soon. It also doesn't help that public schools are seriously constrained in disciplinary matters. "The right to an education" has morphed into a right to disrupt everyone else's education.

[Humboldt1]

This will not happen and is extremely controversial.

To limit the problems caused by "thugs" is to prevent the existence of the "thugs" in the first place by either having the parents do a better job raising their kids (I don't see this happening unfortunately) or by limiting population growth among the poor.

Limiting poor population growth will not get rid of all the bad apples, but a lot of them. You simply cut off public aid once a family on public aid has more than 2 kids. You cap public aid for a family of 2 children (many fathers will not be around, so it may or may not be a family of 4). This would include food stamps, sec 8, welfare, etc.

You would then in 15-20 years, have far fewer of these "thugs" in poor public schools. Of course you would have a lot fewer kids in general in these poor public schools. This would save the tax payers billions.

I don't see this happening as people are more compassionate that this.

[Lookout Kid]

The most affordable private schools are still the Catholic ones. You'll have an easier time changing the Catholic school to your liking than you would CPS, and we all know how much the Catholic establishment loves change!

There are CPS success stories, however. Nettlehorst in East Lake View comes to mind. Blaine on Southport isn't too far behind. The Bell School attendance boundaries are becoming choice real estate for families because of the school.