When I lived in Chicago, I had a black friend who grew up in a rich family in Beverly, and I asked him where he was going to look for his job training. I wanted to come to Chicago (but ended up in DC), and he said he was considering Chicago, too, but was more interested in going to Atlanta.

When I asked why, he said "the white people are trying to kick the black people out of this city. It's better for a black person in Atlanta". He had also told me that, growing up in Chicago, he was often pulled over by police and felt that he had been treated unfairly

More recently, I met a professional black dude at a party, and he was also from Chicago. I talked to him about the Chi and he said that he liked it, but he also seemed to harbor a resentment towards Chicago. I could just tell by the way he was talking. Yet he grew up in a good neighborhood and had no real problems.

Sure, Chicago has its obvious divisions, as discussed in another thread. But I have visited most other cities in this country, and to be frankly honest I don't see any difference. All cities have black and white neighborhoods. Can somebody elaborate what it is about Chicago in particular that has a subset of black people very angry?

Neglected schools; Neglected parks; Neglected infastructure. Broken promises; unequal investment in minority communities. There is an inadequate amount of police protection in minority communities. If you study minority communities in other major cities you'll find the same things, maybe Chicagoans are just more vocal about the unjust treatment. And to be totally honest I wouldn't want to move to the south.

As part of a class, I went down to a public housing project that was being re-developed as a "mixed-income" neighborhood. This mix included 5% of the poor, mostly black people who were already living there. The other 95% had to find a new place to live. Right next to slums stright out of the third world, right across the corner, was a trendy, yuppie, coffie shop. Filled with people who couldn't care less for the people across the street. Well, they did care about getting rid of these people as soon as possible.

I talked to a few people sitting on their stoops. They were sitting there because the electricity hadn't been running in weeks, and the A/C in years. They knew the score. They were been scattered to the wind. Being pushed aside for gated two-story rowhouses. Being pushed aside for people who had a voice. Had money.

These people were angry. Angry a city that did not listen, did not care, did not want them. Pople who either grew out of the life, or knew someone who lived that life, retain the memories of this misery. They retain the anger. And why shouldn't they?

^Just curious, what housing project are you referring to?
This is a interesting topic. The reaction from the residents of the housing projects being put out for the mixed income communities. The Tribune had a good story a few months ago covering the Cabrini Green redevelopment.

Chicago's record on race has been shameful through so much of its history. We were the most segregated of northern cities. We built "projects" (not homes) to warehouse our black citizens. We built the Dan Ryan to separate those projects from white Bridgeport. We stoned ML King in Marquette Park and redlined our neighborhoods. And our council wars were fought in black and white.

Pretty bad shit.

Today? No paradise, of course. But we have come a long way. Hispanic and Asian population growth has thrown a monkey wrentch into the old black-white issues. Sure blacks see Carbini Green come down brick by brick and the near west side and the south side lakefront gentrify...and feel squeezed out. But a lot what we are seeing is economic more than racial. Meanwhile, by no means do I see race dividing our citizens anywhere near how it did in the past. Nor, on any level, have I seen society condone or ignore such divisions.

I'd have to say that today, Chicago not only has come a long way but does not differ from other major metros on the issue of race.

^Just curious, what housing project are you referring to?
This is a interesting topic. The reaction from the residents of the housing projects being put out for the mixed income communities. The Tribune had a good story a few months ago covering the Cabrini Green redevelopment.

I can never keep track of the names, but the one I went to was the one north of roosevelt. The whole area is being torn up and replaced with yuppie low-rises. They call it mixed income, but the requirements for getting a low-income unit are so high, almost no one can get one.

I can never keep track of the names, but the one I went to was the one north of roosevelt. The whole are is being torn up and replaced with yuppie low-rises.

You must be talking about Roosevelt Square. I love that new development--it looks so well planned.

I can't wait till it gets completed--it will add so much vibrance to the near west side!

^At who's expense?

I believe you're referring to the ABLA homes. Was the class, by any chance, Barbara Sherry's Planning Great Cities (UIC)?

At any rate... this behaviour that people describe is, in no way, unique to Chicago. It's a trend that can be found in 99% of America. It's called gentrification; and it's a perfectly natural occurrance. Sure, it sucks for those it displaces, but, if it didn't happen, our Cities would stagnate and, eventually, falter.

^That's it! ABLA

All those hi-rises are being replaced with rowhouses, how can anyone here support that? This is the bad side of develpoing, tearing down buildings on public land, aquired on the cheap, and replacing vast numbers of LI units with a handful of HI. There is nor reason why, as a condition of being able to build or aquire public land (land that WE own, and might not like what is done with it), that they must restore an equal or greater number of LI units elsewhere in the city. With a percentage of those units located in the new development.

Gentrification can work, but it must be done responsibly.

So... you think it's wrong to tear down highrises and replace them with lowrises even when the 'scrapers in question are public housing projects?

If you study minority communities in other major cities you'll find the same things, maybe Chicagoans are just more vocal about the unjust treatment. And to be totally honest I wouldn't want to move to the south.

Your right bvictor1,
Racism is a problem every city regardless of what part of the country your in.

IMO, blacks in the southeast are less vocal about the injustice. Places like Chicago, Philladelphia and many other "northern" cities, the racism is talked about through media, its talked about on the streets and its a part of daily life when compared to "southern cities".

Having lived in Charlotte, Nashville and now Memphis, I've noticed the AA community doesn't have the voice that they have up "north" nor the drive to fight the injustice. That gives the appearance of racial harmony when there isn't.

My personal preference would be to reside in "north" due to the fact that things are up front and in your face with the racial issues. If there is a problem with minority contractors, it needs to be talked about. If there is a problem with redlining, it needs to be talked about. If there is a problem with the school system, it needs to be talked about. I do commend the AA community in Chicago an other cities like for standing up to be heard.

I believe you're referring to the ABLA homes. Was the class, by any chance, Barbara Sherry's Planning Great Cities (UIC)?

At any rate... this behaviour that people describe is, in no way, unique to Chicago. It's a trend that can be found in 99% of America. It's called gentrification; and it's a perfectly natural occurrance. Sure, it sucks for those it displaces, but, if it didn't happen, our Cities would stagnate and, eventually, falter.

ummm.... like I said, Roosevelt Square. Roosevelt Square is the name of the development replacing ABLA homes. Check out www.rooseveltsquare.com

Yeah, I'm well aware of this? STR was saying that he couldn't remember the name of the CHA development that he had visited... I was just saying that it was ABLA.

Your right bvictor1,
Racism is a problem every city regardless of what part of the country your in.

IMO, blacks in the southeast are less vocal about the injustice. Places like Chicago, Philladelphia and many other "northern" cities, the racism is talked about through media, its talked about on the streets and its a part of daily life when compared to "southern cities".



.

Well Miami, Houston and Dallas are like that too as far as the northern cities go.Don't know to much about Atlanta but in the 3 cities i named its talked about daily through the radio, tv, internet and talk about it everyday.

Yeah, I'm well aware of this? STR was saying that he couldn't remember the name of the CHA development that he had visited... I was just saying that it was ABLA.

^DIE, GEOFF DIAMOND!!!

:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

Alright, I really need some sleep... :runaway:

Well Miami, Houston and Dallas are like that too as far as the northern cities go.Don't know to much about Atlanta but in the 3 cities i named its talked about daily through the radio, tv, internet and talk about it everyday.

I am so sorry...I personally don't consider Miami Dallas and Houston to be southern because of the diversity and the way they handle the racial issue.

rofl TUP

I am so sorry...I personally don't consider Miami Dallas and Houston to be southern because of the diversity and the way they handle the racial issue.

It's coo. lol I understand why you would say that and frankly I somewhat agree.

So... you think it's wrong to tear down highrises and replace them with lowrises even when the 'scrapers in question are public housing projects?

In a word; yes. The poor need places to live too, and rather than have massive sprawling ghettos, hi-rise housing projects are a viable option. That is, if they aren't isolated complexes dumped on a superblock, with zero commercial space.

If developer's can do large developents right, there's no reason why they can't do the same with housing projects. Most CHA projects are monuments ot the bad planning of the 1960's. We've come a long way since then, in terms of planning, materials, whatever, we can build good, viable, attractive complexes, and they can be cheap to build and operate too.

Hasn't it already become painfully clear that high-rise housing projects flat-out don't work? Isn't the history of Cabrini, the Robert Taylor Homes and St. Louis' Pruitt Igo project enough proof? The buildings will never be sustainable, no matter how well they're built, because the tenants will never respect them. Not to mention, good luck finding retail and commercial tenants, on the up and up, to share space with no-income/low-income residents.

No matter how ideal it may sound... it will never happen.