Detroit Osborn doesn't look bad at all compared to Chicago Englewood!

[speeddaytwah]

http://www.speeddaytwah.com/1/post/2...d-chicago.html
Perhaps people should stop moving to Chicago!

[Chicago48]

I just want to add, since I'm an exiled Detroiter living in Chicago [[and by the way I meet Michiganders every single week who have left the state), there's a big difference...mainly Gangs. If you had the gang problem that we had, Detroit would be in much worse shape. The gangs have been a problem in Chicago since the 1970s, you should read the history. They were extracted by the FBI at one time, but they're back because the "leaders" who are in jail/prison, have children and grandchildren who glamorize and glorify their dads and grandparents. Gangs are also a generational cultural affair....it perpetuates and grows with each generation. I don't think Detroit is anyway near that.

Once the gangs are extricated from the south and west sides -- and they will be, then you'll see development happen, improved education in Englewood, improved everything, but you got to get people "OUT" not "changed" because they are not going to change....commercial business will move in, etc. but it's going to take a longgg time.

We have a tough mayor that I believe in. He's definitely about business.

[313WX]

I live in Osborn.

While it's not Detroit's best neighborhood, it's certainly not the worst either, nor is it hardly comparable to Englewood.

A better Englewood comparison would be the lower east side, the Mack/Chalmers area. Englewodd, like the lower east side, is completely devastated with very few people remaining. The main cuase? Rampant gang/drug violence in the 1980s.

[Richard]

Once the gangs are extricated from the south and west sides -- and they will be, then you'll see development happen, improved education in Englewood, improved everything, but you got to get people "OUT" not "changed" because they are not going to change....commercial business will move in, etc. but it's going to take a longgg time.

I agree with what you are saying but to what neighborhood will they move them out to? and what neighborhood is a good one in Detroit to encourage the same to move to so it can be in a more contained situation.

There will be those who are in situations because of life's unfairness will they be also grouped in and moved out along with those who will never change.It is a common thing when you take and area and "clean" it up there is an element that has to be moved somewhere and usually it is someplace that did not have them there to begin with.

HUD already tried that route with mingling them with the suburbs to hopefully have a positive influence to change ways of life but that seems not to work out well,unless they can figure out a way to separate those that want to change or are there because of circumstances it is a game of shuffle board with way to much friendly fire.

[wolverine]

I agree with what you are saying but to what neighborhood will they move them out to? and what neighborhood is a good one in Detroit to encourage the same to move to so it can be in a more contained situation.

There will be those who are in situations because of life's unfairness will they be also grouped in and moved out along with those who will never change.It is a common thing when you take and area and "clean" it up there is an element that has to be moved somewhere and usually it is someplace that did not have them there to begin with.

HUD already tried that route with mingling them with the suburbs to hopefully have a positive influence to change ways of life but that seems not to work out well,unless they can figure out a way to separate those that want to change or are there because of circumstances it is a game of shuffle board with way to much friendly fire.

They'd probably move to the suburbs.

There's neighborhoods on the Southisde that are resistant to gang violence. There was an article recently that compared gang violence to disease and how certain neighborhoods almost appeared to be
"immunized". A combination of cultural characteristics and organization to maintain safe and clean neighborhoods. A good tactic is to pull out the bad weeds before they spread. Fight gang crime where it only starts to appear and try to contain it where it remains strong.

Everyone knows CPD enforcement is uneven. The nicest areas seem to be patrolled the most. I don't know how officers are assigned to areas but Id bet alderman in the most stable, tax revenue rich wards see the best of that. But availablity of cops to fight violence in the worst of areas seems difficult with the resources provided which is why I believe gang prevention programs and police resources should be directed to areas where it is only starting to appear. I guess that makes Englewood the loser in all this but eventually the neighborhood will find stable ground.

I worked with local CDCs and churches in the Osborn Neighborhood prior to moving to Chicago where I learned more about Englewood. The neighborhoods are apples and oranges in comparison. Osborn feels much more like a post WWII suburb than an urban neighborhood. People aren't living in two and three flats. They also aren't living in 30 unit apartment buildings. The strategies to fight crime, vacancy, and blight are entirely different in multi-family neighborhoods than one that is almost entirely SFH. We met more homeowners there than renters you'll find in Chicago. And obviously Osborn is in way better shape than Detroit.

Unfortunately Osborn lacks accessibility to good transit tied to hig job centers [[like a healthy downtown) that either provide a good cushion in decline or stepping stone when it comes to growth. Englwood is also surrounded by areas that are soon to receive heavy investment in the next decade. Gentrification is slowly moving in from the East and immigrants from the West. These influences could impact that area in years to come. Point is, it's complete opposite from Osborn in Detroit which I found more blight on the periphery damaging the neighborhood than stability in the case of Engleood. My vancany and crime maps can validate this, but they are 6 years out of date and obviously the recession and foreclosures only made things worse.

[speeddaytwah]

I just want to add, since I'm an exiled Detroiter living in Chicago [[and by the way I meet Michiganders every single week who have left the state), there's a big difference...mainly Gangs. If you had the gang problem that we had, Detroit would be in much worse shape. The gangs have been a problem in Chicago since the 1970s, you should read the history. They were extracted by the FBI at one time, but they're back because the "leaders" who are in jail/prison, have children and grandchildren who glamorize and glorify their dads and grandparents. Gangs are also a generational cultural affair....it perpetuates and grows with each generation. I don't think Detroit is anyway near that.

Once the gangs are extricated from the south and west sides -- and they will be, then you'll see development happen, improved education in Englewood, improved everything, but you got to get people "OUT" not "changed" because they are not going to change....commercial business will move in, etc. but it's going to take a longgg time.

We have a tough mayor that I believe in. He's definitely about business.

I lived in Chicago for a little while. There were 2 drug dealers on the Garfield bus. Chicago really believes in market!

[Bham1982]

Englwood is also surrounded by areas that are soon to receive heavy investment in the next decade. Gentrification is slowly moving in from the East and immigrants from the West.

IMO the exact inverse situation is happening in Englewood. In previous years, Chicago had growing numbers of immigrants and gentrifers. Now both groups are in retreat.

In the past [[1980's through maybe 2007 or so), there was massive investment in the South Loop [[gentrification) and massive Mexican investment in Little Village [[immigration).

Now the exact opposite is occuring. Chicago is bleeding population, the Mexicans are moving to the suburbs from Little Village, and the South Loop condos site half empty.

The more likely near-term scenario is that Englewood will become more economically isolated and experience further decline, as blacks, whites and Latinos continue their flight to the Chicagoland suburbs.

[speeddaytwah]

IMO the exact inverse situation is happening in Englewood. In previous years, Chicago had growing numbers of immigrants and gentrifers. Now both groups are in retreat.

In the past [[1980's through maybe 2007 or so), there was massive investment in the South Loop [[gentrification) and massive Mexican investment in Little Village [[immigration).

Now the exact opposite is occuring. Chicago is bleeding population, the Mexicans are moving to the suburbs from Little Village, and the South Loop condos site half empty.

The more likely near-term scenario is that Englewood will become more economically isolated and experience further decline, as blacks, whites and Latinos continue their flight to the Chicagoland suburbs.

The average life expectancy is 25 in Englewood. Isn't that sad? I wouldn't get out of a car in Englewood unless I have 5 friends with me.

[wolverine]

IMO the exact inverse situation is happening in Englewood. In previous years, Chicago had growing numbers of immigrants and gentrifers. Now both groups are in retreat.

In the past [[1980's through maybe 2007 or so), there was massive investment in the South Loop [[gentrification) and massive Mexican investment in Little Village [[immigration).

Now the exact opposite is occuring. Chicago is bleeding population, the Mexicans are moving to the suburbs from Little Village, and the South Loop condos site half empty.

The more likely near-term scenario is that Englewood will become more economically isolated and experience further decline, as blacks, whites and Latinos continue their flight to the Chicagoland suburbs.

You are incorrect according to the 2010 census for population losses and gains between 2000 and 2010. You are also incorrect according to 2011 census estimates.

Both factual numbers AND last year's estimate validate that claim I made. The US Census shows population gains in neighborhoods that bookend Englewood to the East and West.

Please spend time researching 2000-2010 census results for Gage Park, North Woodlawn, and West Lawn. Some of these neighborhoods produced very robust growth in the last decade 5-10% and post recession gains according to the 2011 census.

These numbers and demographics conflict your claim that those bookend neighborhoods have lost immigrants. Those neighborhoods have lost blacks, but gained whites in areas in proximity to Hyde Park and UofC. This was enough to leave a dent and offset traditional losses. My assumption of gentrification is based off a rise in real estate value, condo renovations and dozens of new major retailers moving in East of Englewood.

Not sure why you mentioned South Loop or Little village. They have no proximity to the areas being discussed and therefore are not pertinent to this discussion. But if people want to know. Little Village did lose population according to the census. But it did not result in vacant housing units. Number of vacant buildings is in the low single digits, so the neighborhood is still doing alright it's just far less crowded than it used to be.

The south loop clocked in at 232% growth. I don't disagree with Bham1982 vacant units exist. There was a lot of speculative purchasing prior to the recession...and many foreclosures came out of that. But if there is continued growth, many of those units will fill back up. I don't expect big numbers like the last decade. The towers are built, there's little vacant land left. Once an area is built out, I expect to see growth percentages in the teens. But anyway, I'm distracted from the original discussion in relation to Englewood....

Bham1982, I know you don't care for Chicago. And that's fine. I have friends in Michigan that don't like it either. But it's not fair to provide misguiding information without much evidence or logical interpretation. It's true the south and west sides are bleeding population, but Chicago is a strange place when it comes to where growth and decline occur. It's not an even distribution and the same goes for crime. It's better to keep in context with the original post. Englewood is obviously an easy Target. It's that one neighborhood in Chicago people associate with the biggest problems. But it doesn't represent the issues citywide, though it certainly represents trending population losses and their effects in relation to the south and west sides.

[wolverine]

The average life expectancy is 25 in Englewood. Isn't that sad? I wouldn't get out of a car in Englewood unless I have 5 friends with me.

I've heard that number floated around before, I believe it's misunderstood. I remembering hearing 25 was the life expectancy for the average person with a previous arrests for violent criminal acts. And it may have been buried in article relating to gang activity.

Here's a recent detailed report. Looks like the average life expectancy of Englewood residents is between 70-75 years....but that's still not good at all.

http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/def...k%20County.pdf

[detroitbob]

You are incorrect according to the 2010 census for population losses and gains between 2000 and 2010. You are also incorrect according to 2011 census estimates.


The south loop clocked in at 232% growth. I don't disagree with Bham1982 vacant units exist. There was a lot of speculative purchasing prior to the recession...and many foreclosures came out of that. But if there is continued growth, many of those units will fill back up. I don't expect big numbers like the last decade. The towers are built, there's little vacant land left. Once an area is built out, I expect to see growth percentages in the teens. But anyway, I'm distracted from the original discussion in relation to Englewood....

Bham1982, I know you don't care for Chicago. And that's fine. I have friends in Michigan that don't like it either. But it's not fair to provide misguiding information without much evidence or logical interpretation.

That about sums it up...

[313WX]

Bham1982, I know you don't care for Chicago. And that's fine. I have friends in Michigan that don't like it either. But it's not fair to provide misguiding information without much evidence or logical interpretation.

Inferiority complex.

Since Detroit, as a region, failed to become what it could have been, the folks want to make themselves feel better by bringing down other successful cities, especially Chicago since its history is most similar to Detroit's.

But isntead of grasping at any type of straws in an attempt to bring down Chicago or demanding that people "Forget about Chicago", why not repair the deficiencies in Detroit that are turning off Detroiters and attracting them to a city like Chicago in the first place.

[leapfrog]

Inferiority complex.

Since Detroit, as a region, failed to become what it could have been, the folks want to make themselves feel better by bringing down other successful cities, especially Chicago since its history is most similar to Detroit's.

But isntead of grasping at any type of straws in an attempt to bring down Chicago or demanding that people "Forget about Chicago", why not repair the deficiencies in Detroit that are turning off Detroiters and attracting them to a city like Chicago in the first place.

^^^^^ +1 ^^^^^

[MidTownMs]

What is the point in comparing how better or worse another city is compared to Detroit. No matter how bad or worse any other city in America is it's not going to make the City of Detroit any better or worse. Instead of making these endless comparisons with other cities do something to make your own neighborhood better...Happy New Year!!!

[Bham1982]

You are incorrect according to the 2010 census for population losses and gains between 2000 and 2010. You are also incorrect according to 2011 census estimates.

Chicago had the nation's second largest decline in population per the 2010 Census. Only Detroit was worse. Are you saying the Census is lying?

There is no 2011 Census, BTW. We only have 2010. There are 2011 sampled ACS estimates, but they have nothing to do with the decennial Census counts. You can't compare one with the other.

Both factual numbers AND last year's estimate validate that claim I made. The US Census shows population gains in neighborhoods that bookend Englewood to the East and West.

The 2010 Census shows massive declines in Englewood, and declines almost everywhere on the South and West Sides. Outside of the Loop and adjacent areas [[which were formerly industrial and now gentrifying, so obviously will show net growth), almost no Chicago neighborhoods showed growth.

Of course the South Loop show massive gains. The South Loop had the greatest construction boom in Chicago between 2000-2010. It logically had massive population gains when you add a bajillion condos.

But the South Loop isn't next to Englewood, and there's no construction boom in Englewood. I don't see why a condo boom in the South Loop back in 2004 would be relevant going forward for Englewood. The South Loop currently has a massive glut of housing.

Please spend time researching 2000-2010 census results for Gage Park, North Woodlawn, and West Lawn. Some of these neighborhoods produced very robust growth in the last decade 5-10% and post recession gains according to the 2011 census.

Again, there is no 2011 Census. This simply doesn't exist. Please show me what you're referring to.

The Census produces no annual counts, and the ACS estimates don't even drill down to the neighborhood level, so I have no idea what you're referring to. They're based on sampled 2% of a jurisdiction, and can't be compared to decennnial enumerated counts.

The overall Latino and Asian populations were stagnant in Chicago from 2000-2010, and Little Village, the largest Mexican community, also had stagnant/slight decline in population. In contrast, the adjacent near west side suburbs had an explosion in Mexican population.

That suggests that Mexican immigrants [[who comprise like 90% of Chicago city proper immigrants) are bypassing the city for the western suburbs. So I don't know why you would think they would magically reverse course and move to black ghettos of the South Side.

Bham1982, I know you don't care for Chicago. And that's fine. I have friends in Michigan that don't like it either.

I do like Chicago, and visit often. Chicago and Toronto are obviously the urban options in this part of the world. But I'm annoyed at the BS that comes out of former Michigan residents doing their stint in Chicago.

Chicago is obviously in much better shape than Detroit. It's obviously undisputed king of the Midwest and one of the greatest cities in the U.S.

But it's in basically worse shape than any other major city in the U.S. not in the Rust Belt. That's why I'm tired at Chicago residents touting their city as a model.

You have this local demographic where people go to, say MSU after having grown up in Macomb Township or wherever, and then move to Lincoln Park for a few years after college, and are shocked you can actually walk to the Cheesecake Factory and McBarleycorn's Frat-tastic Pub. It gets annoying.

Move to Rome or NYC for a few years and then report back to me on the glories of Lakeview.

[bailey]

You have this local demographic where people go to, say MSU after having grown up in Macomb Township or wherever, and then move to Lincoln Park for a few years after college, and are shocked you can actually walk to the Cheesecake Factory and McBarleycorn's Frat-tastic Pub. It gets annoying.

Move to Rome or NYC for a few years and then report back to me on the glories of Lakeview.

Ok. Granted. Chicago is not the end all be all... and it has it's own challenges. Personally I think you're overstating them, but whatever. Point being, the local demographic of which you speak is constantly feeding places like Chicago and constantly moving away from SeM. When they tire of Chi-town and want a suburban life, they're moving to Naperville or whatever...not back to Macomb.

[wolverine]

Chicago had the nation's second largest decline in population per the 2010 Census. Only Detroit was worse. Are you saying the Census is lying?

There is no 2011 Census, BTW. We only have 2010. There are 2011 sampled ACS estimates, but they have nothing to do with the decennial Census counts. You can't compare one with the other.


The 2010 Census shows massive declines in Englewood, and declines almost everywhere on the South and West Sides. Outside of the Loop and adjacent areas [[which were formerly industrial and now gentrifying, so obviously will show net growth), almost no Chicago neighborhoods showed growth.

Of course the South Loop show massive gains. The South Loop had the greatest construction boom in Chicago between 2000-2010. It logically had massive population gains when you add a bajillion condos.

But the South Loop isn't next to Englewood, and there's no construction boom in Englewood. I don't see why a condo boom in the South Loop back in 2004 would be relevant going forward for Englewood. The South Loop currently has a massive glut of housing.


Again, there is no 2011 Census. This simply doesn't exist. Please show me what you're referring to.

The Census produces no annual counts, and the ACS estimates don't even drill down to the neighborhood level, so I have no idea what you're referring to. They're based on sampled 2% of a jurisdiction, and can't be compared to decennnial enumerated counts.

The overall Latino and Asian populations were stagnant in Chicago from 2000-2010, and Little Village, the largest Mexican community, also had stagnant/slight decline in population. In contrast, the adjacent near west side suburbs had an explosion in Mexican population.

That suggests that Mexican immigrants [[who comprise like 90% of Chicago city proper immigrants) are bypassing the city for the western suburbs. So I don't know why you would think they would magically reverse course and move to black ghettos of the South Side.


I do like Chicago, and visit often. Chicago and Toronto are obviously the urban options in this part of the world. But I'm annoyed at the BS that comes out of former Michigan residents doing their stint in Chicago.

Chicago is obviously in much better shape than Detroit. It's obviously undisputed king of the Midwest and one of the greatest cities in the U.S.

But it's in basically worse shape than any other major city in the U.S. not in the Rust Belt. That's why I'm tired at Chicago residents touting their city as a model.

You have this local demographic where people go to, say MSU after having grown up in Macomb Township or wherever, and then move to Lincoln Park for a few years after college, and are shocked you can actually walk to the Cheesecake Factory and McBarleycorn's Frat-tastic Pub. It gets annoying.

Move to Rome or NYC for a few years and then report back to me on the glories of Lakeview.

I think you've lost track of the discussion. We were talking about how neighborhoods surrounding Englwood grew in population according to the 2000-2010 census while Englewood lost nearly 25% of its population. This is the opposite of Osborn which remains quite stable but surrounded by problem areas.

This thread is not about Lakeview, or Cheesecake factory or Barleycorn. Those are touristy places that I'm not surprised you'd bring up quickly. We are talking about Osborn. It's a much nicer place than Englewood which has very diffent problems

[Dexlin]

Wait, so why are we comparing an out-city, single-family home-dominatedm borderhood, with an Southside, inner-city Chicago hood, again? Because they roughly have the same population? Honestly? Really? Truly, this is a top-shelf, well though out comparison. Surely, not some careless, shot-in-dark musing of a tired/loosely-formed mind.

BTW, much thanks to Lowell. He knows how to make the right folks feel valued around here.

[gnome]

I hear you Dex, a little too much heavy-handed supervision. Discussions can be pointed, it is what makes them interesting; blandness in language and thought makes everyone less interesting. TWRWS, that's what Rasputin would say.

[wolverine]

I hear you Dex, a little too much heavy-handed supervision. Discussions can be pointed, it is what makes them interesting; blandness in language and thought makes everyone less interesting. TWRWS, that's what Rasputin would say.

Nothing wrong with that except that some people tell complete lies, make up statistics or paint a wide brush to make their claims. To top it off they get emotional. Telling someone they are foolish to live in a midwest city and move to Rome or NYC will certainly salt the bland discussion won't it? But it kind of makes you wonder why someone is so upset they have to say that.

[Bham1982]

Nothing wrong with that except that some people tell complete lies, make up statistics or paint a wide brush to make their claims.

Wolverine, I have been civil to this point, but you are simply lying. Stop it already.

The Census Bureau is the offical source for populations. You have no authority in the matter, and no, I'm not going to believe in some guy on the internet instead of the official Census numbers.

Again, per the most recent Census count, Chicago has the second worst population loss in the nation, behind only Detroit.

And, again, the South and West Sides of Chicago, with very few exceptions, have massive population losses, so the idea that Englewood is on the cusp of a population turnaround is utter fantasy.

[serpico]

What is the point in comparing how better or worse another city is compared to Detroit. No matter how bad or worse any other city in America is it's not going to make the City of Detroit any better or worse. Instead of making these endless comparisons with other cities do something to make your own neighborhood better...Happy New Year!!!

Amen..
Get your CPL/load your .357 and patrol your neighborhoods. Stop relying on government to protect you. Detroit will only improve when people take control. Running away wont solve problems.

[wolverine]

Wolverine, I have been civil to this point, but you are simply lying. Stop it already.

The Census Bureau is the offical source for populations. You have no authority in the matter, and no, I'm not going to believe in some guy on the internet instead of the official Census numbers.

Again, per the most recent Census count, Chicago has the second worst population loss in the nation, behind only Detroit.

And, again, the South and West Sides of Chicago, with very few exceptions, have massive population losses, so the idea that Englewood is on the cusp of a population turnaround is utter fantasy.

Bham1982, you know I've said plenty of times the South and West sides are losing population. I and everyone else knows that and it would be foolish to speak out in denial. My original post sources the US Census. I used http://www.census.gov/ for all my info and cited 2010 counts.

The point I was making is how Englewood has massive losses, but its surrounding neighborhoods are not doing all so bad. According to the 2010 Census, Gage Park, West Lawn, West Edison, Washington Park all gained in population in the 5-10% range. Woodlawn lost alot, but areas closer to Englewood gained and have been gentrifying. Englewood, Grand Crossing, Parkway Gardens and Auburn Gresham lost ALOT of population.....and they have one thing in common....a very big gang problem.

I don't like to paint a broad brush when analyzing city stats. It wouldn't be fair to do the same to Detroit. We know there's great neighborhoods in the city and people are moving to those. Just because certain areas are losing people doesn't mean we should cast away the entire city as this terrible place not worth living in.

[Sehv313]

I thought Osbourn was a high school, its a neighborhood?

& anyway here are differences in Detroit & Chicago.

Chicago has gangs [[colors & baseball hats are an issue)
Detroit has gangs [[streets less than 4 blocks apart & neighborhood affiliations are an issue)

Chicago has good & bad areas [[Southside & some parts of West)
Detroit is 90% crime scattered all over [[I seen homicides happen in the nicest neighborhoods)

Chicago has some areas like Detroit that are messed up
Detroit has most its areas that look nice but you wouldnt know how bad the crime was unless you lived over there.

Either way both cities are messed up but 1 thing Chicago has in its bad neighborhoods that we dont, is steady businesses. I wish we had at least 1 pizza place in my hood

[Sehv313]

The average life expectancy is 25 in Englewood. Isn't that sad? I wouldn't get out of a car in Englewood unless I have 5 friends with me.

Thats the average life expectancy everywhere in any city, Englewood is not that bad, I got fam on 63rd that's BD's & other cousins thats BPSN, Osborn area aint too bad either compared to most of the city. The houses always looked nice there but crime is getting worse at a rapid pace.