Oak Lawn/Evergreen Park/Mount Greenwood's future? (Chicago, Rockford: crimes, loan)

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by urza216

I didn't say anything about black moving in, either. Heck, if you admitted you some kind of specific disdain for blacks, that would be better. But you want things to be all-white. Why are you living in the melting pot of America then?





This isn't in mass. Yes, I suppose a few white people "left" and they were replaced with a small perctage people who don't all look the same. Good.

Now you can keep twisting my words like a 7 year old would do, or you could have an adult conversation about an important subject. Which one would you like? Would you like to try and continue labeling someone you don't know a racist with no proof by putting words in their mouths, or would you like to have a productive conversation? I'll leave that choice up to you.

I used blacks as an example because I know you thought that's the race you assumed I saw as "destroying" the neighborhood, when I in fact said (or thought) no such thing. In this general area, the lowest income group on average, factually, are African Americans, with a few Hispanics coming in from Burbank. Did I say THAT was a problem? Nope. Not even implied. I'd be happy if this rate of whites leaving halted at about 40% so these neighborhoods could be diverse, but we live in the real world. Most white people have a sub-conscious or conscious racist aspect of themselves where they don't want to live in a neighborhood with other demographics, and same is true for blacks, hispanics, Asians, etc. Neighborhoods that at once were predominantly white, hispanic, black, whatever, and later have a more concentrated group coming in while the formerly dominant group leaves, virtually NEVER stays diverse, and ends up becoming predominantly- whatever the new race is. That is not always bad.

My husband and I have had this discussion many times. It's natural for people to want to be with their own kind. It's not bad if blacks, whites, Asians, etc want to live in areas with predominantly the same race of people. Just like we wouldn't want to live in a retirement community (as a 30-something family with toddlers) and retirees don't typically want to live near a bunch of screaming children. I know some will say that those things aren't comparable, but it's irritating when people accuse you of being racist if you choose a community that may be majority the same race as you.

I do not believe that these minority communities should have to deal with lower education standards, crime, etc... that aspect of it is saddening.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

Now you can keep twisting my words like a 7 year old would do, or you could have an adult conversation about an important subject. Which one would you like? Would you like to try and continue labeling someone you don't know a racist with no proof by putting words in their mouths, or would you like to have a productive conversation? I'll leave that choice up to you.

I used blacks as an example because I know you thought that's the race you assumed I saw as "destroying" the neighborhood, when I in fact said (or thought) no such thing. In this general area, the lowest income group on average, factually, are African Americans, with a few Hispanics coming in from Burbank. Did I say THAT was a problem? Nope. Not even implied. I'd be happy if this rate of whites leaving halted at about 40% so these neighborhoods could be diverse, but we live in the real world. Most white people have a sub-conscious or conscious racist aspect of themselves where they don't want to live in a neighborhood with other demographics, and same is true for blacks, hispanics, Asians, etc. Neighborhoods that at once were predominantly white, hispanic, black, whatever, and later have a more concentrated group coming in while the formerly dominant group leaves, virtually NEVER stays diverse, and ends up becoming predominantly- whatever the new race is. That is not always bad.

Oak Lawn isn't all white anymore? I said my words about the important subject. Good. Diversity. The melting pot of America. Not everything in Oak Lawn the same anymore. Sounds like Oak Lawn is IMPROVING in the regard of racial demographics.

And I then brought up the very important issue of people like you poisoning Chicagoland. There is nothing going on in Oak Lawn that's cause for alarm. But nice job making it sound like there is.

BTW: It isn't really an "assumption. You said some crap about how you think you might have saw somewhere a black gang's graffiti, right? The Gangster Disciples are almost entirely black. It's easy to deduct from your post that you seem particularly concerned about black people. But mostly I just got from your post, "OMG, Oak Lawn isn't lily white anymore. This is a bad thing not a good thing!"

[urza216]

Originally Posted by Rae4732

My husband and I have had this discussion many times. It's natural for people to want to be with their own kind. It's not bad if blacks, whites, Asians, etc want to live in areas with predominantly the same race of people. Just like we wouldn't want to live in a retirement community (as a 30-something family with toddlers) and retirees don't typically want to live near a bunch of screaming children. I know some will say that those things aren't comparable, but it's irritating when people accuse you of being racist if you choose a community that may be majority the same race as you.

I do not believe that these minority communities should have to deal with lower education standards, crime, etc... that aspect of it is saddening.

Yeah, some of my closest friends are of a different race then me. In no way, do I not consider them "my own kind".

[oakparkdude]

Perhaps the young'uns here don't appreciate the horrible economic consequences of buying in a declining neighborhood/town, but it can have huge economic consequences.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming trend in Chicagoland is for housing values to fall when the white population drops (exceptions like Oak Park notwithstanding). Its not racist to acknowledge this historical fact.

Given that a house is the largest financial purchase most people make, its understandable that most people who prefer to buy a house would prefer to buy in a town where values are likely to be stable or go up versus a town which is most likely going to suffer a decline in prices. It can mean a blue collar worker buying a house for 100k, paying off the mortgage, retiring, selling the house for 500k, and traveling around the world, versus retiring, selling the house for 50k, and moving in with your kids because you can't afford any other options.

Note, I didn't mention anything about race. However, historically black families have had significantly less wealth than white families, and I'm not even sure if that gap has closed over the last few decades. Thus, when white families avoid buying in a town, prices tend to fall as the people who are buying tend to have less money to spend on housing. In parts of the country this isn't necessarily true (parts of suburban DC actually increased average household incomee as towns transitioned from white to black and in California there are plenty of Asian-dominated towns with very high wealth).

[urza216]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Perhaps the young'uns here don't appreciate the horrible economic consequences of buying in a declining neighborhood/town, but it can have huge economic consequences.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming trend in Chicagoland is for housing values to fall when the white population drops (exceptions like Oak Park notwithstanding). Its not racist to acknowledge this historical fact.

Given that a house is the largest financial purchase most people make, its understandable that most people who prefer to buy a house would prefer to buy in a town where values are likely to be stable or go up versus a town which is most likely going to suffer a decline in prices. It can mean a blue collar worker buying a house for 100k, paying off the mortgage, retiring, selling the house for 500k, and traveling around the world, versus retiring, selling the house for 50k, and moving in with your kids because you can't afford any other options.

Note, I didn't mention anything about race. However, historically black families have had significantly less wealth than white families, and I'm not even sure if that gap has closed over the last few decades. Thus, when white families avoid buying in a town, prices tend to fall as the people who are buying tend to have less money to spend on housing. In parts of the country this isn't necessarily true (parts of suburban DC actually increased average household incomee as towns transitioned from white to black and in California there are plenty of Asian-dominated towns with very high wealth).

Sometimes you got to take the good with the bad, I guess.

[oakparkdude]

And to make it worse, the fear of declining property values becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everybody agreed not to panic sell, and if white folks agreed to continue to buy into a town, prices won't decline. But its not an individual decision. If one family sticks it out when all the other neighbors sell and leave, their reward for sticking it out is usually a lower selling price when they do leave. In fact the financial incentive is to be the first to sell, before everyone around you panics so you can get the best price.

[flamadiddle]

Draw your own conclusion...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2575921.html

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by urza216

Sometimes you got to take the good with the bad, I guess.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? LOL!!

Actually Oakparkdude has it pretty much right on. If an area becomes minority majority, that doesn't bode well for property values, with a few exceptions. People might say, "I need a bigger house," as Lookout Kid points out people do, or "I just want good schools," as many do. But in reality, they're fundamentally trying to avoid staying on what they think will be a sinking ship.

Unfortunately, that mentality then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the community at issue.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

I'm not trying to be insulting, but the larger sizes of new homes is a very well-documented phenomenon, and isn't really up for debate. The average size of new single-family homes constructed in 1950 is less than half the size of the average single-family home constructed today. And this is VERY MUCH a part of what makes inner-ring suburbs unattractive to a lot of people. Some have managed to overcome this with architectural charm or other amenities (like the Oak Parks and La Granges of the world), but that doesn't really apply to places like Hillside, Westchester, or Evergreen Park. These suburbs just don't offer what current buyers with cash are looking for, and this is why they have slid a few notches down the totem pole to price ranges affordable to working class owners or landlords looking to collect vouchers.

Behind the Ever-Expanding American Dream House : NPR


Small is Beautiful: U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment | GreenBiz.com


https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/...medavgsqft.pdf

Sure, white flight is part of the problem too. But so is "white attrition", where the people who bought the houses in the mid-20th centrry are "aging out" of certain suburbs and not being replaced with new, young white affluent homebuyers.



Well first of all, those numbers are exaggerated for the standard bungalow on a "Chicago Lot", and I'm sure you know that finished basement levels never count towards home square footage. And secondly, what's big enough for you isn't necessarily what the greater population wants. If the old 1,200 sf 1915 bungalow plan were really that popular today, we'd see them being built in the cornfields of Oswego.

I don't disagree that homes got bigger but is that really because people demanded bigger homes, or because people demanded homes in areas where they could be made bigger?