What is your take on Hyde Park? (Chicago, Lincoln: loans, home)

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

this isn't accurate by the way. It is at best exaggerated.

Yes, it is totally accurate, by in large.
Statistical outliers and anomalies don't negate the broader reality.

[ajolotl]

Speaking of Hyde Park in particular lots of whites move into North Kenwood, Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and even some in Washington Park. These areas are majority black, not white enclaves with diverse perimeters. The people I know do it to save money and stay close to work, not make a point. My only point was that at least they are willing to do it.

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Yes, it is totally accurate, by in large.
Statistical outliers and anomalies don't negate the broader reality.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

While Bridgeport was more violent and overtly racist, Hyde Park was racist in a more subtle way. Along with the University of Chicago, Hyde Park residents argued that it was the CIRCUMSTANCES and ENVIRONMENT that blacks grew up in that made them bad neighbors instead of any sort of racial superiority.

I think it's undeniable that circumstances and environment (along with culture) play a primary role in how a person (or persons from a like group) will behave. The problem is, there are nearly 10,000,000 people in Chicagoland, but only a handful of them enjoy the luxury of being able to pay their bills as professional sociologists.

For everyone else, it doesn't matter what the 'root cause' is. The problems are far more immediate; the practical consequences that exist in front of their noses are their only concern, understandably so.

Whether nature or nurture causes the grossly disparate rates of criminality amongst certain peoples doesn't matter one iota to the guy with a 10 year old daughter who has to walk home from her bus stop in the newly "diverse" neighborhood. This isn't to say that 'root causes' are unimportant- quite to the contrary, they are of the utmost importance. I just don't necessarily think it makes one "racist" if their primary concern is for preserving the integrity of their standard of living, just because the corrosive dynamic happens to be racial in nature. You'll find almost without exception that the issue is the "corrosion", not the "race".

The monumental issue that we as a city, a society and a nation face is that the dialog on race and 'integration' has devolved into a circle-jerk of lies, where everyone is expected to ascribe to the same delusions and mindlessly cheer-lead for the same high-minded principles. Anyone who DARES speak of what's going on in the real world is pilloried as a "racist" for being obtuse enough to mention that the Diversity-Emperor appears to be without clothes.

[SAI126]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

I think it's undeniable that circumstances and environment (along with culture) play a primary role in how a person or persons from a like group will behave. The problem is, there are nearly 10,000,000 people, but only a handfull of them enjoy the luxury of being able to pay their bills as professional sociologists.

For everyone else, it doesn't matter what the 'root cause' is. The problems are far more immediate; the practical consequences that exist in front of their noses are their only concern, understandably so.

Whether nature or nurture causes the grossly disparate rates of criminality amongst certain peoples doesn't matter one iota to the guy with a 10 year old daughter who has to walk home from her bus stop in the newly "diverse" neighborhood. This isn't to say that 'root causes' are unimportant- quite to the contrary, they are of the utmost importance. I just don't necessarily think it makes one "racist" if their primary concern is for preserving the integrity of their standard of living, just because the corrosive dynamic happens to be racial in nature.

The monumental issue that we as a city, a society and a nation face is that the dialog on race and 'integration' has devolved into a circle-jerk of lies, where everyone is expected to ascribe to the same delusions and mindlessly cheer-lead for the same high-minded principles. Anyone who DARES speak of what's going on in the real world is pilloried as a "racist" for being obtuse enough to mention that the Diversity-Emperor appears to be naked.

This won't win you any popularity contests. I wish there were more who weren't afraid to deal with this problem as honestly as you've just done.

[ajolotl]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

I think it's undeniable that circumstances and environment (along with culture) play a primary role in how a person (or persons from a like group) will behave. The problem is, there are nearly 10,000,000 people in Chicagoland, but only a handful of them enjoy the luxury of being able to pay their bills as professional sociologists.

For everyone else, it doesn't matter what the 'root cause' is. The problems are far more immediate; the practical consequences that exist in front of their noses are their only concern, understandably so.

Whether nature or nurture causes the grossly disparate rates of criminality amongst certain peoples doesn't matter one iota to the guy with a 10 year old daughter who has to walk home from her bus stop in the newly "diverse" neighborhood. This isn't to say that 'root causes' are unimportant- quite to the contrary, they are of the utmost importance. I just don't necessarily think it makes one "racist" if their primary concern is for preserving the integrity of their standard of living, just because the corrosive dynamic happens to be racial in nature. You'll find almost without exception that the issue is the "corrosion", not the "race".

The monumental issue that we as a city, a society and a nation face is that the dialog on race and 'integration' has devolved into a circle-jerk of lies, where everyone is expected to ascribe to the same delusions and mindlessly cheer-lead for the same high-minded principles. Anyone who DARES speak of what's going on in the real world is pilloried as a "racist" for being obtuse enough to mention that the Diversity-Emperor appears to be without clothes.

Well put. The disparity between acceptable public and private discourse on this issue is one of the greatest instances of hypocrisy I can think of.

And yes, there are quite a few professional sociologists in Hyde Park. Whatever the reason, I observe a greater willingness for people to 'look past the end of their noses' in some parts of the city than others. Hyde Park is one example. But there are many neighborhoods on the north side are reasonably successfully integrated, frequently with people with young kids and maybe decent but not necessarily great salaries, so it's not done entirely out of privilege. And I also know many blue collar people in East Beverly who stuck around during the integration of the neighborhood and are the same way. Overall, though, I know many more on the southwest side who stick a for-sale sign in the yard and head to Orland Park faster than I think the circumstances justify. I suspect if it weren't for the housing crisis the demographics in Evergreen Park and Oak Lawn for example would be changing quickly. I'm not convinced that there is a need for that.

[chicken.or.the.nugget]

is hyde park one of chicagos wealthiest areas?
i know near north side and lincoln park have wealthy areas too

[freefall]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

To PokerPlayer1:

Years ago I read a book for a college urban history course that contrasted the racism of "elite" Hyde Park against the racism of "blue collar" Bridgeport in the mid 20th century. It was a good read, but I just can't remember the name of the book or the author. The book went through the different methods each neighborhood used to keep out black residents. While Bridgeport was more violent and overtly racist, Hyde Park was racist in a more subtle way. Along with the University of Chicago, Hyde Park residents argued that it was the CIRCUMSTANCES and ENVIRONMENT that blacks grew up in that made them bad neighbors instead of any sort of racial superiority. However, the net effect was the same in both neighborhoods--which was finding an excuse to discriminate against blacks and to keep them out of the neighborhood. Of course, both neighborhoods are very diverse today because they just couldn't hold out any longer and/or attitudes changed.

Hyde Park was supposed to be Chicagos model integrated neighborhood, a lot of upper class black folk, like in Madison Park. Where does Obama live? Muhammed Ali used to live there too.

[Manigault]

Madison Park is a private street in Hyde Park - Kenwood, very near where Muhammad Ali used to live. Currently, Obama lives in Hyde Park - Kenwood. Just like Nino Scalia used to.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by chicken.or.the.nugget

is hyde park one of chicagos wealthiest areas?
i know near north side and lincoln park have wealthy areas too

The economic demographics in Hyde Park are hard to nail down because while there is certainly a good deal of money floating around there, there's also a lot of students with little or no income that brings the figures down but doesn't really reflect their station in life, so to speak.

There's also lot of money floating around Kenwood (for all intents and purposes, an extension of Hyde Park), which is obvious if you drive around the residential streets, particularly along Drexel and points east. Some of the most gorgeous and elegant homes in all of Chicago are found in Kenwood. But there's also a lot three, four and five story courtyard apartment buildings housing people who fit anywhere between the lower and upper middle class demographic. It's a difficult part of town to pigeon-hole into one neat little category.

[lincolnparker]

Average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in 2004:
60614 Lincoln Park $133,271 (Individual Income Tax Returns)
60610 Gold coast/near north $126,537 (Individual Income Tax Returns)
60615 hyde Park $49,323 (Individual Income Tax Returns)

*source: //www.city-data.com/zips

Originally Posted by chicken.or.the.nugget

is hyde park one of chicagos wealthiest areas?
i know near north side and lincoln park have wealthy areas too