Chicago homicide trends 1990 to 2011

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein

It is probably because that doesn't appear to be only Beverly and Mt. Greenwood in that particular map. I believe those are police districts shown on these maps. Some districts are pretty large and won't tell the entire story about specific neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods will be pulled down by their neighbors while others will be pulled up.

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

This. The police district containing Beverly and Mt. Greenwood appears to also contain Washington Heights, Morgan Park, and bits of Roseland and Auburn Gresham.

Good points.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Crime data certainly indicates otherwise. As the link in the OP of this thread shows, there are only a few places in the city as bad as they were then, let alone worse. Logan Square isn't one of them.

I didn't say Logan Square as a whole was worse, I said that as parts of it are improving/changing, that necessitates the more criminally-prone demographics moving into new areas.

I don't how much clearer I could have made that.

I've lived a stone's throw from Milwaukee and Diversey for 12 years. I watched gentrification creep up the rail line in Lincoln Park & Lake View, and splinter off NW up Lincoln Ave long before the little residential side streets got a whiff of change. So I'll take that firsthand experience over your inability to distinguish between macro trends and the block-to-block realities.

Blocks change one at a time.

People trying to keep their kids in a school, to stay near work, family, friends, will often move in small increments as economic realities force them to.

There are still little pockets of holdouts all over supposedly 100% gentrified high-end yuppie neighborhoods, but you won't see that on a Community Area macro analysis.

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I didn't say Logan Square as a whole was worse,

You said parts of it are worse. I find this to be highly unlikely compared to 1990 given the data of the larger area. If you have data indicating otherwise, please show us.

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Blocks change one at a time.

Of course. Some have probably changed a lot, some have probably changed a little, and some probably haven't changed much at all. You've still got quite an uphill battle if you're arguing that the change is for the worse, though, unless you define worse by higher rent and property taxes and/or the presence of hipsters and yuppies. (You'd have a valid point if so, but I don't think that's what you mean.)

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

You said parts of it are worse. I find this to be highly unlikely compared to 1990 given the data of the larger area. If you have data indicating otherwise, please show us.



Of course. Some have probably changed a lot, some have probably changed a little, and some probably haven't changed much at all. You've still got quite an uphill battle if you're arguing that the change is for the worse, though, unless you define worse by higher rent and property taxes and/or the presence of hipsters and yuppies. (You'd have a valid point if so, but I don't think that's what you mean.)

I agree. Logan Square has had a total of 25 homicides since 2007 of which 17 occured in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Eight occured in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

You said parts of it are worse. I find this to be highly unlikely compared to 1990 given the data of the larger area. If you have data indicating otherwise, please show us.

The data which indicates otherwise is not exactly the kind of data one finds in Census forms, nor necessarily even in crime data. The fact that your neighborhood school may be slowly getting poisoned by the cancer that is a 40 year old street gang's latest generation is a very sticky wicket, long time residents can feel like a frog in the pot of water which takes 5 - 10 years to come to a boil.

The best evidence I could think of for you would be the
shifting gang territories as reported by the Chicago Crime Commission's Gang Book. There are only two editions to compare from, but they tell the story of Logan Square pretty well.

It's IMO as simple as, when a few blocks close to the Logan L or adjacent to Milwaukee go from lower-income renters to middle-income home and condo owners, the former population has to go somewhere.

I am not saying it's as simple as one part of Logan Square is good, the other is bad. It's that the change is often gradual, and for long periods of time individual blocks can have McMansions co-existing with section 8 housing chock full of convicted felons because grandma doesn't have the heart to evict her grandson, even though he's "mixed up with the wrong people."

If we had been having this conversation about Lincoln Park in 1985, I would have pointed you to what was then called "the fringe" areas west of Southport. For Lake View in 1995 that area would have been similar, perhaps a little further west into where there was still the remnants of a blue collar factory neighborhood, at Ashland.

Where I am now, that aggregated data is meaningless.

There are literally single households/apartment complexes on most of my surrounding blocks that are holding an entire block back. It only takes one single place of refuge on a block, where gangbangers, hoodlums, etc. are able to gather with the permission of the homeowner, to really stain the overall vibe of a much larger area.

Right now for us, it's the two blocks west of Kimball/NE of Milwaukee/east of Central Park/south of Belmont that are bat**** nuts. It's because some MLDs have been pushed into that area, which the LKs have long struggled to keep a lock on. In the past few years we started seeing a third player, the SDs, and I'd wager nobody really knows what the hell is going on within that gang subculture - but it consists of hundreds of people. They'll be gone in a decade, and then you'll be right that the data will reflect that our census tract "flipped," but the data will not tell the tale of the transition, which isn't terribly different from trench warfare if you are stuck in the middle of it.

In general, this is all my opinion - with the exception of the places I've actually lived, which is obviously first-hand observation. But I've been quite familiar with Logan Square since I was a kid, it is following a fairly predictable path that blighted neighborhoods with fantastic infrastructure eventually do.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Of course. Some have probably changed a lot, some have probably changed a little, and some probably haven't changed much at all. You've still got quite an uphill battle if you're arguing that the change is for the worse, though, unless you define worse by higher rent and property taxes and/or the presence of hipsters and yuppies. (You'd have a valid point if so, but I don't think that's what you mean.)

I'll clarify, in that I'm not saying "most of it is worse," I'm just saying that some of it is.

I'll further add that I certainly expect this to be a temporary situation, but that is of little relief to the retirees.

You are correct that in the long run, I believe the property taxes are the greater evil. No gangbanger is able to garnish my wages or repossess my house.

[ChiNaan]

I hear everything you're saying, and it all makes sense. Everything you're pointing out, though, is just evidence that some areas haven't gentrified very much. I totally agree with that. That's a different thing than saying some areas are going in the opposite direction, though, which is what you said initially.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

I hear everything you're saying, and it all makes sense. Everything you're pointing out, though, is just evidence that some areas haven't gentrified very much. I totally agree with that. That's a different thing than saying some areas are going in the opposite direction, though, which is what you said initially.

Sort of - I think both of those things can happen simultaneously.

One block gentrifies, and that leads to another going in an opposite direction, at least until it catches up.

A really good example which is happening now is Portage Park. I have friends there who tell me loads of riff-raff are moving in because they're getting pushed out of places like Logan Square.

I'm surprised Drover hasn't weighed in, I hear somewhat similar things about Irving Park, although I think the housing stock (largely SFH) will make that neighborhood more immune than most.

btw, I really do recommend that Gang Book, it is bloody fascinating! First edition is apparently rising in value, see, if the gangs were smart they would have stocked up.

Amazon.com: The Chicago Crime Commission Gang Book: A Detailed Overview of Street Gangs in the Chicago Metropolitan Area: James W. Wagner, Kate Curran Kirby, Mars Eghigian, Joseph Petrenko: Books

[Drover]

To the extent Irving Park has been having issues, they look to be spilling over from the north (Albany Park) rather than from the south (Avondale). The notable exception would be the Kilbourn Park area, the "forgotten" part of Irving Park that hangs below Addison. Not coincidentally, that's also right by the Shurz Viper's Den. But that part has been kinda sketchy for as long as anyone can remember, so that's nothing new.

The prepondrance of SFH's are found west of Central Park, and yeah, that's the part that has remained mostly drama-free. East of there however you will find a lot of two- and three-flats with working-class and immigrants. That tends to be the area with the flare-ups, particularly north of Irving Park.

According to my landlord who has lived here since shortly after the area was discovered by French fur traders, Irving Park got pretty rocky in the early-mid 90s and has been generally improving ever since. If Albany Park can find a bit more stability, Irving Park will be fine.