where does "West Lakeview" end and Roscoe Village begin? (Chicago: real estate, brokers)

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Yuppies generally don't sit out on the stoop and their kids don't play lineball and fast pitching (but then maybe no kids do that anymore). They're not very "old neighborhood" kind'a people. And once they take over a neighborhood it's easier to find a place to get "gourmet" cupcakes than a gallon of milk. Or is that a Youth Ghetto thing as opposed to a strictly Yuppie kind'a thing?

On the other hand a Yuppie neighborhod is certainly preferable to a slum. But what I liked was an old neighborhood like Austin in the 50s and 60s that was a relaxed mix of classes, occupations and ethnicities. Back when the people who would today be referred to as Yuppies were just regular guys with white collar jobs. And didn't have the brand names of their clothing ostentatiously displayed on it.

Disclosure: I'm pretty much the walking definition of a "yuppie" as a lawyer that used to live in Roscoe Village and then moved out to Naperville.

With that in mind, the issue is that neighborhoods like the old Austin are virtually non-existent today... and that's not a Chicago thing. Regarding the comments from you and Chi-town native, there are fewer middle class neighborhoods largely because there really isn't much of a middle class anymore: there's a large affluent class and a larger underclass with little in between. So, the changes in the city with respect to housing values and types of people living there are a reflection of that overall societal change much more than anything else (i.e. property taxes).

Now, I do take umbrage to how many people do have a knee-jerk negative reaction to yuppies moving in. Just take a look at the Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee and St. Louis forums on this site with people wishing that they had the "yuppie problem" that Chicago has, mainly because a disproportionate share of their young educated people have moved here. For better or for worse, it's an "up or out" world. It's amazing that anyone could criticize the thought of Chicago emulating Manhattan when the other choice was becoming Detroit (and we VERY close to heading that direction in the 1970s and 1980s). Wishing that there is a "middle ground" simply isn't realistic because there is very little "middle ground" in terms of income levels any more.

Is it a choice between the lesser of two evils? Possibly. However, I've seen the other dilapidated cities in the Rust Belt firsthand and we are incredibly lucky that we haven't sunk down with them. Better to be desirable to people who can afford to live anywhere than to just be stuck with people that can't afford to leave (which is what you see all across the Midwest right now).

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

...Austin in the 50s and 60s that was a relaxed mix of classes, occupations and ethnicities. Back when the people who would today be referred to as Yuppies were just regular guys with white collar jobs...

That is what West Lake View and "Roscoe Village" were like until the mid/late 90's.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Regarding the comments from you and Chi-town native, there are fewer middle class neighborhoods largely because there really isn't much of a middle class anymore: there's a large affluent class and a larger underclass with little in between. So, the changes in the city with respect to housing values and types of people living there are a reflection of that overall societal change much more than anything else (i.e. property taxes).

It's really extremely simple - you can't have housing prices increasing at rates far exceeding wages.

LOL. typed in "housing costs vs wages" and look what pops up:

The Dangerous Disconnect Between Home Prices and Fundamentals

Note that is dated 2007, btw.

A more recent one:

Melbourne's Median House Prices Vs Wages 1965-2010 - Simple and Sustainable Forums

All of those "experts" in the finance trades who kept the bubble growing ought to be put in stocks.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

It's amazing that anyone could criticize the thought of Chicago emulating Manhattan when the other choice was becoming Detroit (and we VERY close to heading that direction in the 1970s and 1980s). Wishing that there is a "middle ground" simply isn't realistic because there is very little "middle ground" in terms of income levels any more.

Fail.

Look up the definition of "false dichotomy," you might qualify for providing the textbook example (Manhattan or Detroit? Really? )

Chicago never was a single-industry town to the extent Detroit was.

The housing bubble and high taxes have nothing to do with "saving us from becoming Detroit."

Chicago's superior geography and diverse economy are why we're still humming. We weren't originally called the "Capital of the Northwest" for nothing.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by Chris_H_2

Is the area around Hamlin Park (south of Belmont, west of Damen, east of Clyborne, and north of Diversey) still considered West Lakeview?

I think of both Hamlin Park and Roscoe Village as being in North Center. I believe Lakeview ends, and North Center begins, at Ravenswood Avenue. At least according to the maps I've seen of the 77 official Community Areas.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by eevee

I definitely got a bit of the "yuppie" vibe, but it doesn't really bug me (though I recently almost got run over by a jogger pushing a Cadillac sized stroller).

Ah, yes... those joggers pushing the strollers so wide they take up the entire sidewalk. I feel your pain, as I've had to dodge them more than once.

[Drover]

Uh.... so anyways, Lakeview ends and RV begins at the Metra tracks. Roscoe Village = Metra tracks to Western, Belmont to Addison.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Drover

Uh.... so anyways, Lakeview ends and RV begins at the Metra tracks. Roscoe Village = Metra tracks to Western, Belmont to Addison.

And the street next to the Metra tracks on both sides is Ravenswood (which I stated earlier.)

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Fail.

Look up the definition of "false dichotomy," you might qualify for providing the textbook example (Manhattan or Detroit? Really? )

Chicago never was a single-industry town to the extent Detroit was.

The housing bubble and high taxes have nothing to do with "saving us from becoming Detroit."

Chicago's superior geography and diverse economy are why we're still humming. We weren't originally called the "Capital of the Northwest" for nothing.

I don't think it's a false dichotomy at all. If you don't want to use NYC/Detroit, then compare San Francisco and Cleveland, or Boston and Milwaukee, or Seattle and St. Louis. These aren't isolated examples with one extreme to another, but rather 2 distinct groups of large cities that chose different paths that have largely dictated where they are today. Chicago was never a single-industry town, but up until the 1970s, it was heavily blue collar with a dependence on factories (much like other Midwestern towns who weren't necessarily simply auto factory communities). I don't agree with a lot of what Mayor Daley did, but one thing that he did understand was that if Chicago wasn't going to get left behind in a global economy, it had to shift itself to be more attractive to the professsional class (from large cultural projects such as Millennium Park to an emphasis on street-level cleanup like removing graffiti in order to make neighborhoods feel safe) and make it into an environment friendly to businesses of all types and sizes. Places in Michigan and Ohio legitimately didn't think any of that stuff mattered and spent more time fighting "big bad corporations" in order to placate the union voters there. Now, those "big bad corporations" want nothing to do with those states and have taken their jobs elsewhere to places that are more business-friendly and have a greater supply of educated workers prepared for today's economy (not the old one).

Believe me, we were a lot closer to being in the same predicament as Detroit than you think. It's not an accident that we ended up MUCH better off than virtually every single other town in the entire Midwest, many of whom have geographic advantages on the Great Lakes just like we do - that's not a "false dichotomy" to point out the differences. The single biggest difference is that all of those college grads from Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin (who are the yuppies that you seem to despise) are choosing not to live in places like Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee and instead coming here. Those types of workers are the draws for companies to set up here for the long-term and what keeps the city's population level stable (which in turn keeps the city's police officers, firefighters and teachers all employed).

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I don't agree with a lot of what Mayor Daley did, but one thing that he did understand was that if Chicago wasn't going to get left behind in a global economy, it had to shift itself to be more attractive to the professsional class (from large cultural projects such as Millennium Park to an emphasis on street-level cleanup like removing graffiti in order to make neighborhoods feel safe) and make it into an environment friendly to businesses of all types and sizes. Places in Michigan and Ohio legitimately didn't think any of that stuff mattered and spent more time fighting "big bad corporations" in order to placate the union voters there. Now, those "big bad corporations" want nothing to do with those states and have taken their jobs elsewhere to places that are more business-friendly and have a greater supply of educated workers prepared for today's economy (not the old one)

McJobs for all, huh?

So we see the union-bashing globalization-apologist come out of the closet.

No point trying to have a rational discussion with you, you don't have enough grounding in economics to even begin to understand how silly that analysis is.

You have nicely illustrated why folks rooted in reality in Chicago have a healthy distrust of our so-called and self-appointed Yuppie Saviors.

For the record: it is most certainly possible to be a young urban professional (in the white collar sense) without buying into the voodoo economics you're describing above.