Are there bad parts in Oak Park? (Chicago, Humboldt: rental, house)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by BigLake

No-- you don't need to take issue with me. It's a message board. Relative to other parts of Oak Park-- and in the context of the question posed-- it's a valid comment to say the SE of OP section is "unstable" in reference to the larger village. Additionally, I did reference that the SE corner-- South of the Ike was buffered and likely safer than north of the Ike due to it's proximity away from Columbus Park. Please re-read my comments in their entire context before taking issue.

And your quote here-- "It's merely the proximity to Austin that brings the crime rates up (and the apartment buildings on the Oak Park side of Austin Avenue aren't always great either)" -- Lyman is two blocks off Austin!

I'm pretty familiar with this section of OP and its positives and negatives.

Many thanks.

The term "unstable" to me means an area which is experiencing turnover and on the decline. I personally wouldn't apply that label to any part of Oak Park today. If anything, the opposite is true -- more affluent residents are moving into parts of Oak Park that formerly would have been avoided. There may be problems in some areas of the Village relative to others because of their proximity to Austin, but they're not unstable per se.

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by BRU67

The term "unstable" to me means an area which is experiencing turnover and on the decline. I personally wouldn't apply that label to any part of Oak Park today. If anything, the opposite is true -- more affluent residents are moving into parts of Oak Park that formerly would have been avoided. There may be problems in some areas of the Village relative to others because of their proximity to Austin, but they're not unstable per se.

Thanks for your definition of unstable. AGAIN - reread my post. The poster asked a general question about the area. Being sensitive, I used the word "unstable"-- as in "crime and safety". In context, the SE section of Oak Park is less stable than in some (not all) other parts. I also qualified that it's likely safer than N of the Ike.

Please read the post in its entirety and in context before commenting negatively. An BTW-- sorry if this was misleading. Not my intent. Shouldn't have been misleading.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by BRU67

The term "unstable" to me means an area which is experiencing turnover and on the decline. I personally wouldn't apply that label to any part of Oak Park today. If anything, the opposite is true -- more affluent residents are moving into parts of Oak Park that formerly would have been avoided. There may be problems in some areas of the Village relative to others because of their proximity to Austin, but they're not unstable per se.

In fact, to my untrained eye it looks like even the very western few blocks of Austin is starting to clean up too, at least along the Green Line corridor. Anyone more familiar with the area care to confirm or deny?

[ChangedEssence]

Originally Posted by Drover

In fact, to my untrained eye it looks like even the very western few blocks of Austin is starting to clean up too, at least along the Green Line corridor. Anyone more familiar with the area care to confirm or deny?

They are better than they used to be and at certain hours. The Police are staked at many locations along the Green Line. I live right off in that area and I am very pleased with the improvements. Still not perfect with Austin being that defining line between city and suburb. But a years ago it was so bad that the Austin L' Stop was closed.... There has been beautiful transition.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Drover

In fact, to my untrained eye it looks like even the very western few blocks of Austin is starting to clean up too, at least along the Green Line corridor. Anyone more familiar with the area care to confirm or deny?

My wife works at West Suburban and the part of Austin that the hospital borders is still pretty dicey, I do know that. I drove around a small area east of the hospital about a year and a half ago and it didn't look particularly enticing. There are beautiful houses and apartment buildings. Some were kept up, some were boarded up. There were spots of broken glass where car windows had clearly been smashed and pockets of teenagers loitering here and there who appeared to be up to little, if any, good. Overall, it seemed like a bad neighborhood to me though I have no basis for comparison. It could be better than 10 years ago. I don't know.

The housing stock and convenience is there for an eventual clean up, that's for certain. Unfortunately, it's generally speaking a pretty dismal place at this juncture.

[BigLake]

^^^ would tend to agree. People have been speculating that this area is on the cusp of gentrifying. They've been saying this for a while and yet no great measurable results this far. I have heard there was a commission being created to look at the intersection of Lake (I believe) and Madison to offer better financial incentives for commercial. Not sure where that will go, if in fact it get up/running.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by BigLake

^^^ would tend to agree. People have been speculating that this area is on the cusp of gentrifying. They've been saying this for a while and yet no great measurable results this far. I have heard there was a commission being created to look at the intersection of Lake (I believe) and Madison to offer better financial incentives for commercial. Not sure where that will go, if in fact it get up/running.

A lot of people think you can simply bring in economic development and presto, the area will change. Unfortunately, Austin has such a high crime rate, it's going to take more than a Starbucks and Panera Bread to jump start an influx of more affluent people into the area. There are contingents of middle and upper middle class people who will tolerate poor schools and lack of economic development if there are other upsides. But few, if any, will move to an area where they're physically unsafe.

Short of evicting all the current residents, it's going to be difficult to solve Austin's woes.

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by BRU67

A lot of people think you can simply bring in economic development and presto, the area will change. Unfortunately, Austin has such a high crime rate, it's going to take more than a Starbucks and Panera Bread to jump start an influx of more affluent people into the area. There are contingents of middle and upper middle class people who will tolerate poor schools and lack of economic development if there are other upsides. But few, if any, will move to an area where they're physically unsafe.

Short of evicting all the current residents, it's going to be difficult to solve Austin's woes.

This is kind of a "no sh*t sherlock" comment. Wtf is your point? That's it bad to try? Austin near Columbus has been hard-pressed for a while. Should people just sit around with fingers crossed? At least people are taking a hard look at the situation and trying to better the economic conditions for both sides of the border. It won't happen overnight, but at least people have the gumption to try.

You may be agreeing with me, but tough to tell.

[Lookout Kid]

BigLake, you need to calm down. BRU67 wasn't refuting anything you said.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by BigLake

No-- you don't need to take issue with me. It's a message board. Relative to other parts of Oak Park-- and in the context of the question posed-- it's a valid comment to say the SE of OP section is "unstable" in reference to the larger village. Additionally, I did reference that the SE corner-- South of the Ike was buffered and likely safer than north of the Ike due to it's proximity away from Columbus Park. Please re-read my comments in their entire context before taking issue.

And your quote here-- "It's merely the proximity to Austin that brings the crime rates up (and the apartment buildings on the Oak Park side of Austin Avenue aren't always great either)" -- Lyman is two blocks off Austin!

I'm pretty familiar with this section of OP and its positives and negatives.

Many thanks.

I was just pointing out that the "conventional wisdom" about Oak Park is flawed. You brought up the "conventional wisdom" as a topic, and I was commenting on this. You hear it all of the time... Avoid the areas east of Ridgeland and south of the Ike. I'm saying this is bad advice, and that things aren't that simple.

I took issue with your use of the word "unstable". Nothing personal, man. Other than that, I didn't take issue with anything you said. Just the "conventional wisdom" you mentioned--which you may or may not agree with.