De-Gentrification? (Chicago: for sale, renting, crime rate)

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Oh great, the racialists have arrived in this thread.

Yeah, what a shock... A thread about gentrification eventually addresses racial components... Wow, stop the presses!

We should all just ignore that part, instead favoring a deeply semantic position that holds gentrification is purely 'economic' in nature... Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... Let's stop all the talk about racial dynamics in a gentrification thread. I'm sure only then will the discussion approach a truthful, meaningful median.

[oakparkdude]

The thing is, the percentage of American adults who are married with kids continues to drop. For the ever increasing number of childless adults, there will be no reason to relocate to the burbs.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Yeah, what a shock... A thread about gentrification eventually addresses racial components... Wow, stop the presses!

We should all just ignore that part, instead favoring a deeply semantic position that holds gentrification is purely 'economic' in nature... Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... Let's stop all the talk about racial dynamics in a gentrification thread. I'm sure only then will the discussion approach a truthful, meaningful median.

We can talk about race as one important issue among many influencing the course of gentrification. No one here would be opposed to that. What we are opposed to, is a racialist viewpoint, whereby all problems in America are due to minorities; either their very existence or their not knowing their place.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

This is not necessarily true anymore. While the post WWII trend was definitely towards employment deconcentration throughout the metro area, I'd say the trend is shifting towards the Central Business District once again, at least in cities with good rail infrastructure. For instance, BP is ditching their suburban location to get back downtown. Why? It's easier to get young talent.

If you look at office vacancy rates in the Chicago area, its worse in the burbs than in the Loop.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Everyone is right that schools are very important. I've been touring a lot of public schools lately and have been surprised at how many are actually good. The ones Lookout Kid mentioned are definitely good, and I've gotten good impressions from Audubon, Goethe, Ravenswood, Disney, International - Bucktown, Hamilton, and Pritzker. One thing that surprised me was that the total test scores for larger schools isn't always the best indicator of the quality of the school. A large school can have 5 or more classes per grade with the classes broken out by ability levels, and the higher ability level classes can be very good. After a year of touring schools and talking to parents, students, and teachers I've found the CPS to have better schools than I thought (on the Northside at least).

Absolutely true. Just because you choose to raise a family in an urban environment doesn’t mean you must suffer with crappy schools. The pro ex-burb and Linear Migration folks don’t like to hear this but Chicago and some inner-ring ‘burbs have realized that they will need to have good schools in order to retain and attract quality residents. They have made great strides compared to 10-15 years ago via magnet schools, charter schools, gifted centers, honors programs, and other creative means that work with diverse student bodies. I’m confident they’ll continue to do so.

Of the top 10 scoring schools on the 2008 ISAT, 7 of them are CPS schools. 2 of the other 3 are schools using the gifted model in Peoria and Rockford, two large cities that can be considered urban. Only 1 general population suburban school made it into the top 10. My own community’s schools are routinely dismissed as poor but the Berwyn Dist. 100 elementary school my wife and I are served by outscored 12 of the 16 elementary schools in Plainfield Dist. 202 on that same ISAT. I’ll have no incentive to move to Plainfield, Naperville, or any other suburb for schools, until at least high school. And even there, a good kid can still get a good education with proper parental involvement and motivation.

There’s still a long way to go but the focus is there, and the tools are in place for the children of urban dwellers to get a good education, without resorting to a private school or a knee-jerk move to suburbia on an expensive, and possibly unfounded, assumption that your kids will get a better education.

I still contend that the strong general population public schools in the suburbs are getting high scores on the standardized “one size fits all” tests mandated by President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act” largely because of their favorable demographic mix, as opposed to any inherent superiority in their teaching methods or curriculum. The Act has favored them while penalizing urban schools who, right now at least, are dealing with the bulk of the State’s bilingual and limited English speaking students. That has worked to negatively skew perceptions of urban school districts. But I think as demographic mixes change and shift, suburban schools will be challenged to keep their scores where they are.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by MassVt

...if we are seeing the beginning of the end of the classic post-WW2 era of the downtown work force communting home to the suburbs. As time goes by, more and more employers are choosing suburban locations, thus making the suburb-to-suburb commute much more prevalent. There may be an ebb-and-flow pattern, but ultimately the lure of the single-family home with a yard will continue to draw midle-class families to the suburbs.

Plenty of companies nationwide moved to suburban locations in the 70's and 80's, but what companies have left downtown for the 'burbs recently?

The recent movement has been moving OUT of the 'burbs and into the loop. BP has already been mentioned, and there are plenty of other examples:
- MillerCoors moved from a suburban location in CO and an urban location in Milwaukee to the Loop
- Boeing has moved to the loop
- United has moved corporate offices from Elk Grove Village to the Loop
- Hyatt and Exelon recently invested in new HQ office spaces in the Loop
- Mead Johnson is moving from Evansville to Chicago and is looking at Loop locations as well as N. surburban locations.

Those are just a few examples. Chicago has lost some corporate headquarters to mergers, but I can't think of any lost to the suburbs in this decade. Are there any major ones anyone knows of?

Chicago also has plenty of single family homes with yards, that also have good public transit to downtown. Areas like Ravenswood, Andersonville, Lincoln Square, Logan Square, Avondale, etc. have plenty of SFH with yards, and are seeing an increase in the number of families staying in the city. I think the old idea of people moving to the suburbs after having kids is being joined with a new idea of people selling their condo in Wrigleyville/Lakeview/Lincoln Park to buy a SFH in Lincoln Square/Andersonville/NW side in general.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

We should all just ignore that part, instead favoring a deeply semantic position that holds gentrification is purely 'economic' in nature... Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... Let's stop all the talk about racial dynamics in a gentrification thread. I'm sure only then will the discussion approach a truthful, meaningful median.

No one is saying that - there were a number of posts that have been removed. They definitely went beyond just talking about racial dynamics.

[Frank the Tank]

In our "city vs. suburbs" discussion, I think that a lot of people are assuming that it's an "either/or" movement - that movement to the city must mean that there's a movement away from the suburbs and vice versa. I don't think that is true - growth in suburban areas can easily coincide with growth in urban areas (and it does). The real migration in this country is from smaller towns (both rural and smaller industrial cities such as Youngstown, Ohio) and even larger cities with stagnant to negative economic growth (such as Detroit and Cleveland) to a select handful of large metropolitan areas that have good prospects for economic growth. Thus, the point isn't really whether people from within the Chicago area move to and from the city and suburbs - it's about the fact that people from places like Michigan and Ohio are moving to the Chicago area period (regardless of whether that ends up being the city or the suburbs).

If the Chicago area wants to stay on that list of "desirable" metro areas, then I believe that it will need to maintain both a strong urban core (which is attractive to young educated professionals) as well as excellent suburbs with great schools (which are attractive to families with children) - there's no reason why one should come at the expense of the other. Whether it's fair or not, Chicago's Midwestern location can often be a strike against it when competing with places like NYC and LA for talent. What the Chicago area does have, however, is a complete array of housing options and distinct neighborhoods, spanning dense urban environments, walkable neighborhoods with low-rises, suburbs with expansive estates, suburbs with walkable downtowns, typical suburban subdivisions, mansions or condos that can be on Lake Michigan, towns that could be considered almost rural, liberal college enclaves, conservative small towns, etc. That variety is a main difference-maker between Chicago and almost every other metro area in the U.S. - you can find essentially any type of neighborhood that can fit any personality or what you consider to be your "dream" house (which is a highly personal decision - if a person's dream house is on a suburban cul-de-sac, then that person's dream is every bit as valid as a person whose dream house is a walk-up apartment in a trendy city neighborhood) and at price ranges that a relatively large number of people can afford without over-leveraging themselves. So, don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water - the balance between the city and suburbs is what makes Chicago unique among American cities and is indeed one of the major attractions of living here. Both the city and the suburbs can be made stronger at the same time (and we should strive for that if we want the Chicago area to continue growing in the long-term).

[ajolotl]

Since 99% of the people who post here know this already (and discuss it almost daily) your self-congratulatory tone looks sort of stupid.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Yeah, what a shock... A thread about gentrification eventually addresses racial components... Wow, stop the presses!

We should all just ignore that part, instead favoring a deeply semantic position that holds gentrification is purely 'economic' in nature... Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket... Let's stop all the talk about racial dynamics in a gentrification thread. I'm sure only then will the discussion approach a truthful, meaningful median.

[heyjude1959]

Poker player

Very good points.
I think many in the Hispanic community WANT TO ASSIMILATE which of course makes it recipricol and it is easier to get along