Clear Ridge

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Interesting.

I wonder if the main difference between the far northwest and far southwest neighborhoods might have more to do with the jobs and employment around O'Hare than with the gentrified north side on the other side of the "North Branch."

I've always thought the main difference between the far NW and far SW is just proximity to O'Hare. Culturally is feels about exactly the same, with the exception of MBA loyalty obviously.

The main difference is the housing stock and transportation options. The North and Northwest sides are served by 3 different lines -- 4 if you count the Purple Line -- while the Southwest side is served by one. And the Orange Line didn't even come into existence until 15 years ago, which in turn affected development patterns. The housing stock on the Southwest side is far more weighted toward SFHs, particularly ranches and some bungalows -- it's basically no different than inner suburbia. Consequently there's not as much rental stock down there and the neighborhoods don't have the same kind of density that are conducive to the rise of "hip" walkable neighborhoods.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

One thing I will say is the women are much different between north and south sides. They each have their own pro's and con's of course. I have dated girls from both sides of Madison.

And I typically like girls form the SW side. I dated one. My friend characterized the northwest side as "upwardly mobile, type A, yet still with a bit of working class roots" Are you suggesting differences are more "type A" versus "type B"?

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

And I typically like girls form the SW side. I dated one. My friend characterized the northwest side as "upwardly mobile, type A, yet still with a bit of working class roots" Are you suggesting differences are more "type A" versus "type B"?

Pretty much. In fact, I dated a gal from Garfield Ridge when I was young. She was a redhead that looked like Princess Fergie.

[chicago103]

I see what people are saying about neighborhood change in relation to what has happened in Brighton Park and Archer Heights but many of you are talking as if middle class flight is inevitable in Garfield Ridge and I do not buy that especially for the areas around Archer and Harlem. On balance I think this neighborhood will remain stable and middle class with more families with children moving in. Some potential changes and/or problems aside that I feel can be dealt with I believe the neighborhood is actually getting better over time. Some people seem to still have the 1950's mentality that neighborhood change of any type means inevitable crime, and property value decline. There is no hard evidence that I have seen that is actually happening in Clearing or Garfield Ridge.

[Brian45919]

I live in Clear-Ridge. It is still a safe neighborhood. If we all pitch in and keep the place clean, call cops when we see stuff happening, and be good neighbors, then the place will always be nice. IF WE RUN AWAY LIKE THEY DID IN THE 60-80'S IN MANY OTHER SOUTH SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS IT WILL BE A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY.

[Sid2001]

Originally Posted by chicago103

I see what people are saying about neighborhood change in relation to what has happened in Brighton Park and Archer Heights but many of you are talking as if middle class flight is inevitable in Garfield Ridge and I do not buy that especially for the areas around Archer and Harlem. On balance I think this neighborhood will remain stable and middle class with more families with children moving in. Some potential changes and/or problems aside that I feel can be dealt with I believe the neighborhood is actually getting better over time. Some people seem to still have the 1950's mentality that neighborhood change of any type means inevitable crime, and property value decline. There is no hard evidence that I have seen that is actually happening in Clearing or Garfield Ridge.

Brighton Park and Archer Heights took a turn for the worse in the 1990's, not 1950's, a turn which continues to this day. The Illinois Senate recently voted to allow CPS teachers to live outside of the city. I don't see how this will help areas like Garfield Ridge. How is Garfield Ridge going to avoid the fate of Brighton Park and Archer heights. I've seen some trashy people moving in Stickney and Summit in the past decade.

[otters21]

Originally Posted by Sid2001

Brighton Park and Archer Heights took a turn for the worse in the 1990's, not 1950's, a turn which continues to this day. The Illinois Senate recently voted to allow CPS teachers to live outside of the city. I don't see how this will help areas like Garfield Ridge. How is Garfield Ridge going to avoid the fate of Brighton Park and Archer heights. I've seen some trashy people moving in Stickney and Summit in the past decade.

Actually the turn "for the worst" in BP and AH started in the late 70s and all through the 80s and the 1990s were the continuation of the decline and right now the two areas are now almost at their bottom and cannot get any worse. Also a good number of the CPS teachers are not white of European descent and many of them do not want to teach in schools in the rougher neighborhoods on the south and west sides. If any flight was to occur as a result of this new ruling to allow teachers to live out of the city ,it would be not just white flight but middle class flight of all races . By the way police , firemen and other city workers are still required to live in the city and that may be able to keep some of the neighborhoods from falling into further decline. I got my info from the Chicago Almanac that came out in 1990s and the latest census info available at the time was 1990 so the demographic changes in Archer Heights and Brighton Park took place before the 1990s.

[chicago103]

If Brighton Park and Archer Heights are "at their bottom" so to speak then there is really not much to worry about because I don't consider those places to be really bad, Brighton Park a bit but there are still much worse places. Archer Heights is actually fairly safe I think, maybe not on the level of Archer and Harlem in Garfield Ridge but still pretty safe. Maybe some of you people are more jumpy then I am or there is **** going on I have no idea about but if Archer Heights is your idea of a bad neighborhood than really nothing in this thread is even worth worrying about.

[North Side Brandon]

My Aunt is married to a Chicago Cop they live in the Belmont Heights area Orange and Addison and they nearly moved to Garfield Ridge a decade ago. They are both lifelong Northwest Siders and decided against it. Dunning and Garfield Ridge are similar in many ways despite being on opposite sides of the city. They both have alot of City Workers and both have very large Polish populations and having growing Latino populations. The city workers in Dunning live in between Harlem and Cumberland in Belmont Heights, Belmont Terrace and Irving Woods not so much in Dunning and Schorsch Village in between Harlem and Austin. In Garfield Ridge the city workers live in between Harlem and Narragansett. It seems to me most of the change in these areas have occurred on the Eastern side of both communities.

[EJ3791]

I grew up on the North Side and didn't really get to know the NW Side until I was in high school in late '80s/ early '90s. I ended up living in Norwood Park for a couple years. I can't say I really liked the NW Side all that much, no real reason, just found it kind of "meh." I've only gotten to know the SW Side in last few years, or at least parts of it (Garfield Ridge, Clearing, to a lesser extent Mt. Greenwood). For one reason or another, I find it quite a bit more appealing than the NW- I can't put my finger on why, they are similar in many ways, but the SW has a different feel to it.