Is West Humboldt Park gentrifying, bad or good area to invest? (Chicago: neighborhood, buy)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Holdencaulfield

If not Humboldt Park, what gritty areas do you anticipate pioneers will be moving into in the near future? When you say pioneers, who are you referring to?

As to the first question, I don't know. I could guess, but that would be about all I could do. As to the second question, the pioneer class has historically (and generally) been made up of mostly white artists, college students, gays and lesbians, and speculators.

[surlycue]

Originally Posted by Holdencaulfield

If not Humboldt Park, what gritty areas do you anticipate pioneers will be moving into in the near future? When you say pioneers, who are you referring to?

Avondale (Particular SE and E Avondale). East Pilsen (East of Ashland).

[Chi-town Native]

I've been in Avondale for 8 years, and I hate the term "pioneer," which seems to be one those terms that gets thrown out there anytime a white 20 or 30-something moves to a neighborhood outside of the lakefront ones. Does the hispanic family across the street who's been there less time than I have get to be pioneers, or is it just reserved for white people?

I don't dislike the vast majority of my neighbors, and I didn't move there to flip/speculate, etc.

I grew up in LV and LP, and Avondale just feels comfortable, and of course the L stop and the expressway were key.

If by pioneers we're talking about clad-in-black 20-somethings who are by and large going to be gone before they hit 35, blech- those people don't improve anything. I find it offensive that the idea that a bunch of slackers show up translates to "improving" a neighborhood, as it implies all non-white people are undesirables, gangbangers, etc.

However, I will concede that upon being woken up my the idiot using a carhorn as a doorbell this morning, I realized with joy that by and large that is a problem that disappeared from my nook years ago.

People who want to improve their neighborhoods should worry less about stacking the deck in terms of "us vs them" and just get involved in the nitty-gritty stuff - shovel. pick up trash, even if it's not yours. phone in graffiti blasters as soon as you see it, etc.

And most importantly - GO OUTSIDE. It amazes me how many people want to just come home, pull in the garage, veg on the couch, etc. & without having any actual interactions with their neighbors just assume things will improve. Just being outside and working in your yard or basically not being a thug has the effect of dissuading thugs and punks from congregating on your block.

This ain't rocket science, but it does take some work. My parents moved to Lincoln and Aldine in 1967, and when they moved a bit further NW they said people told them they were crazy, moving in an Irish-Polish-Puerto Rican factory town ghetto. Who got the last laugh there...

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I find it offensive that the idea that a bunch of slackers show up translates to "improving" a neighborhood, as it implies all non-white people are undesirables, gangbangers, etc.

Not all non-white people are undesirables, however, the desirability of a neighborhood bears a fairly stark corollary to how 'white' that neighborhood is.
Until someone can reference a real-world example of a neighborhood that's 80% black being as 'desirable' (using standard metrics of 'desirability') as any given neighborhood that's 80% white, reality trumps theory.

Big urban places like ours can be tricky, in that you might have a designated community area that, within it's boundaries, is racially mixed so the statistics create the illusion of 'technical diversity' when in reality, that's just not the case. It's immediately clear once you're in that community, actually looking at who lives where, that said community isn't an example of 'diversity' as much as it is an example of rather arbitrary community lines not being reflective of demographic patterns and different races living in different parts of that community.

[Holdencaulfield]

Originally Posted by BRU67

As to the first question, I don't know. I could guess, but that would be about all I could do. As to the second question, the pioneer class has historically (and generally) been made up of mostly white artists, college students, gays and lesbians, and speculators.

So only white people can be classified as pioneers? What about Hispanic or Black artists? Can you be a minority and a hipster?

[Holdencaulfield]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Not all non-white people are undesirables, however, the desirability of a neighborhood bears a fairly stark corollary to how 'white' that neighborhood is.
Until someone can reference a real-world example of a neighborhood that's 80% black being as 'desirable' (using standard metrics of 'desirability') as any given neighborhood that's 80% white, reality trumps theory.

Cities can be tricky, in that you might have a designated community area that is mixed, so the statistics create the illusion of 'technical diversity' when in reality, that's just not the case. It's immediately clear once you're in that community, actually looking at who lives where, that it isn't an example of 'diversity' as much as it is an example of rather arbitrary community lines and different races living in different parts of it.

I'd pick Kenwood over Canaryville any day of the week.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Holdencaulfield

So only white people can be classified as pioneers? What about Hispanic or Black artists? Can you be a minority and a hipster?

In Chicagoland, the vast majority of "pioneers" are whites.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Holdencaulfield

So only white people can be classified as pioneers? What about Hispanic or Black artists? Can you be a minority and a hipster?

That is why I used the words "historically" and "generally." Yes you can be a pioneer or hipster and be a minority. But the majority have been white, yes.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Holdencaulfield

I'd pick Kenwood over Canaryville any day of the week.

Canaryville is a neighborhood, Kenwood is a community area. There are parts of Kenwood you would certainly not take over Canaryville, unless you're insane (or, unless you're black. In that case, yeah, I'd take Kenwood over Canaryville too. They can be mean there).

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Holdencaulfield

Can you be a minority and a hipster?

Only in the 1950s.