Suburb gangs (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina: low income, for sale, apartment complex)

[nick is rulz]

boarded up house in the city beats unsold McMansion in the suburbs in the life game of rock paper scissors.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by nick is rulz

boarded up house in the city beats unsold McMansion in the suburbs in the life game of rock paper scissors.

Why?

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Why?

There are houses in Mpls. and Saint Paul that have been boarded up for decades that could look brand new tomorrow if they were rehabbed. Imagine what a vinyl box looks like after it isn't maintained for a year? It was built so cheaply to begin with that you may as well tear it down.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

There are houses in Mpls. and Saint Paul that have been boarded up for decades that could look brand new tomorrow if they were rehabbed. Imagine what a vinyl box looks like after it isn't maintained for a year? It was built so cheaply to begin with that you may as well tear it down.

Heh. That might be true. I've never lived in a poorly constructed house in the suburbs, so that didn't really occur to me...

[nick is rulz]

Depends on your burb. There is a lot of solid construction in the inner rings. If I found a steal on a house built between 1940 and 1960 in a first ring suburb, I would not scoff at it simply because its 'in the suburbs' and would consider the idea seriously.

Also, minimalism is the new black. Smaller is better, and excessive is frowned upon. I dont want to open up a whole new ball of wax and hijack the thread, but outer ring suburbs are not a sustainable way of life.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

No problems with promoting Rosemount. Obviouisly you like it there, and that is great. I know several people there and they all have good things to say too. What I don't get is why you have to knock other places. You don't like Woodbury for some reason you fail to articulate, you bash South Washington County Schools for reasons that seem trivial, and you make statements about Minneapolis that are completely false on a regular basis.

I agree that one article in a newspaper is not some defacto indication that the burbs are in great danger, but don't expect people to ignore your jabs or drink your koolaid.

No, I don't like Woodbury and as I have said there isn't anything tangible to support that I just don't like it. The South Washington County schools are not as good as others in the same general area, test scores and whatnot support that. Mahtomedi has much better schools so why live in Woodbury when you can live in Mahtomedi? I do not make false statements about the Minneapolis schools, most of which center around the less then 50% graduation rates and the low performing schools. There is data everywhere to support this.

The IB programs and the "top 100 schools" survey is brought up frequently but no one seems to look at what the survey is based on--the number of kids in the IB program (all 99 of them according to a Star Trib article done a year or so ago) and how many of them TAKE AP tests--they don't even have to pass them. If you stacked the suburban school up and only took the kids that were in the top 1% of the class and how many AP tests they took they would far outdistance the Minneapolis programs. This information is all supported through information provided by the schools, surveys and newspaper articles. Tell me exactly what is false about this?

As the current debate on this tread is going, children that grow up in poverty do NOT perform as well as those that grow up in middle and upper middle class situations. When a child is worried if they are going to eat that day or not it has a HUGE impact on how well they do in school. If you have a child that is a good student yet none of their friends care about doing well in school more often then not that WILL rub off on a child and thus, not perform to the level to which they are capable. Since this is a huge problem in the inner city schools, the atmosphere in the schools is not conducive to the majority of the students doing well overall. Ask any teacher in Minneapolis or St. Paul and they will tell you the same thing, if they can get the kids and their families to care about school 99% of their problems will go away and the schools will perform at a level equal to that in the suburban schools. The only real difference between Minneapolis and Eden Prairie for example is the amount of overall involvement of the families and the emphasis placed on doing well in school.

There is no mystery to why schools with many kids that get free and reduced lunches also do not perform as well.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by golfgal

The IB programs and the "top 100 schools" survey is brought up frequently but no one seems to look at what the survey is based on--the number of kids in the IB program (all 99 of them according to a Star Trib article done a year or so ago) and how many of them TAKE AP tests--they don't even have to pass them. If you stacked the suburban school up and only took the kids that were in the top 1% of the class and how many AP tests they took they would far outdistance the Minneapolis programs. This information is all supported through information provided by the schools, surveys and newspaper articles. Tell me exactly what is false about this?

Please provide links to empirical data, articles, "information provided by the schools", surveys, or other studies that reflect your claims on this topic. Actually I haven't seen anything statistically significant data to support that 196 is "tops" as you so often claim.

Originally Posted by golfgal

As the current debate on this tread is going, children that grow up in poverty do NOT perform as well as those that grow up in middle and upper middle class situations. When a child is worried if they are going to eat that day or not it has a HUGE impact on how well they do in school. If you have a child that is a good student yet none of their friends care about doing well in school more often then not that WILL rub off on a child and thus, not perform to the level to which they are capable?

I see- that must be the argument that District 196ers use to justify why 17 of their 30 schools didn't make 'adequate yearly progress' last year, primarily in the area of minority and low-income students, correct? And doesn't 196 segregate all of their special ed or "alternative" students at a very young age? (must be a way to keep the 'mainstream' test scores up). I stated myself that students from poorer backgrounds with things going on at home are more likely to have difficulties in school- this doesn't mean that this is a rule or even happens the majority of the time, there are many low-income schools where the majority of their students are successful. I think low-income students are probably likely to do worse when the vast majority of students at their school come from often-cliquish middle/ upper class backgrounds. And there has never been any evidence to support that being around poor kids that underperform "rubs off" on anyone- it's not the plague golfgal.

Originally Posted by golfgal

There is no mystery to why schools with many kids that get free and reduced lunches also do not perform as well.

Top High Schools in Minnesota - 2009 | GreatSchools

All jazzed up on the North Side

Measure for measure, teaching approach gaining popularity

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Heh. That might be true. I've never lived in a poorly constructed house in the suburbs, so that didn't really occur to me...

It isn't a city-suburb thing. Houses built before the mid-60s are simply built much better. Think of all of the hard wear and tear that houses in areas like the Northside or Phillips have taken over the years. In alot of areas, people don't or can't afford to, take care of their homes. Luckily, they tend to live in areas with older housing stocks. Lathe and plaster is simply a better material than drywall in terms of longevity. Hardwood subfloors are sturdier than particle board. Imagine of a house in Lakeville took the same beating that a house on the Northside does? I think it would literally fall in on itself after a few years. Its ironic that as the building code increased, the craftsmanship of our homes decreases. The more powertools we have, the lazier we are.
Eventually, places like Shakopee are going to have the same problems that Minneapolis has and had. Shakopee just won't age as gracefully.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Think of all of the hard wear and tear that houses in areas like the Northside or Phillips have taken over the years... Imagine of a house in Lakeville took the same beating that a house on the Northside does?

Hey now, easy on the Northside- remember that there are many long-time families up here (not to mention whole neighborhoods of people) that have meticulously maintained their homes for decades.

Also, there are many cities in the US that have 60s/70s/80s built ghettos- California has many, and they definitely are not pretty. Even in the twin cities you can see that most apartment complexes built in the 60s-80s already look much worse than complexes built pre-1960s.

[nick is rulz]

Name one neighborhood in North Minneapolis that doesnt have a boarded up house.

Im not trying to be patronizing, but the the point that he was trying to make speaks volumes about the quality of the housing.