Anyway, I had to google thee historical violent crime data myself. Turns out neither of you are being entirely honest. GP is definitely wrong when he asserts that crime has skyrocketed from "three decades ago". Would have been late 80s, early 90s and historical data says crime was much higher at that time. (Multiple times higher actually. So "jostmey" was not a little off, but way off on that assertion according to data.)
And you're not being entirely honest when you say demographics have changed and imply that means a change in crime rates. At least, the rate of decrease of violent crime has gone nowhere over the past 30 years or so. It's decreasing at the same rate today, as it was in 2009, and in 1999. Meanwhile, demographic rate of change was near constant until it ratcheted up around 2008 apparently. (And then only in downtown, and only in the income dimension. Not racially.) So, following your implication, the rate of decline in, say, violent crime, should have ratcheted up around that time as well.
The really interesting thing though is that even if I had validated either of your assertions in the data, neither of your explanations shed much light on plausible reasons for the disparity the article mentions. It's like you two just took your preferred world views and started arguing with each other without regard to what the data actually stated, or even what the original question actually was.
I mean, OK, we get it. You like Chicago. Fine. Just say that and leave it at that, don't try to snow us.
Same with "jostmey". We get it. You don't like Chicago. Just say that and leave it there. Why try to blow smoke up our collective rears?
Most of the population loss is concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods. There are also plenty of South Side neighborhoods that are doing quite well (Hyde Park, Beverly, Mt Greenwood, Kenwood, Woodlawn, McKinley Park, Chinatown, Pilsen, Bridgeport, Garfield Ridge, and a few more). Those places don’t get the news coverage so everyone lumps an entire 1/3 of the city into “dump”.
==https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/...
OK moorhosj, let's try to step through this.
What does that have to do with Chicago's life expectancy disparity being 30 years? Are you saying then, that what we should really be doing is comparing the life expectancy of people in Chinatown, with people in Chinatown, instead of comparing people across your whole city?
Because what I'm trying to explain to you guys is that, this is not how the rest of us outside Chicago think. If you were to ask me, I would say, yeah, it seems totally reasonable to compare life expectancies across the entire city of Madison for instance. (I'm from Wisconsin.) I'd wager if you'd ask someone from Nebraska, they'd say, "Yeah, it seems reasonable to compare life expectancies for people across the entire city of Lincoln." We're not coming up with some off the wall metric to try to make Chicago look bad here.
You and this "jostmey" guy are doing that for us.
Finally, look, for the average person, we see a black guy, we're gonna say he's black. Not "Two or more races". Not "Black with hispanic origin". Etc etc etc. So, going back to the original point, we didn't get hung up on that stuff 3 decades ago. In 70, 80,90, whatever, we, even the census,just called people black. (Maybe we might have called them mixed if they were mixed, but that's certainly not how our censuses would have counted them back then.) So, you throw the 2 or more ethnicities or whatever group in and you get, what? 33, 34% of what we in 1980 would have simply called "black"? I'd be willing to bet money that the two or more races / hispanic census stuff started right around the same time that the percentage of blacks in the census declined.
Point being, these ratios aren't really changing much. Only society's definitions of what is black has changed. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, maybe that's neither? The point I'm making is that demographics aren't changing much from 80, 90, 00 whatever. At least racially. Fewer total people, yes. But the ratios seem to be relatively constant. Now if you go back further, obviously you get radical change. But the original post said "last three decades". So you have to look at the last 3 decades, and not cherry pick.
To the rest of your point, test we should compare these things across cities, that is how we see the disparities. That point is more relevant to the original article and not the specific point I was responding to.
And counting blacks since 2010, when you changed the definition, so that people who were called black in 1980, or 1990, or whatever, are no longer called black. Well duh. Yeah, if mixed kids are born in Chicago, and you guys call them, I don't know, whatever it is you call them. Then they won't be counted in your data as black. Is that surprising to you? So basically to me, I feel like you guys don't count any mixed blacks, and then are surprised that the number of blacks is going down? I mean come on man. That should be a no brainer. But the important thing here, is that no one really outside of Chicago would look at those people and say they are not black. And again, in 80 or 90 or maybe even 00, they counted them all as black in the census. That's all I'm saying.
==His analysis of U.S. Census Data found that between 2005 and 2017, the city of Chicago’s 25-39 year-old age cohort grew 15.7 percent, while falling dramatically in the rest of Cook County (7.2 percent drop) as well as the metro area outside of Cook County (5.9 percent decline).
==In addition, between 2005-17, Chicago’s population of 25-44 year-olds with a bachelors degrees or additional advanced degrees grew 42 percent. As Saunders wrote in a Twitter thread sharing his findings, “An older, less educated, manufacturing-oriented populace is being replaced by a younger, more educated, knowledge-economy populace.” Chicago now has a higher share of college educated workers than the surrounding suburbs.
This phenomenon is dragging down the already depressed neighborhoods the most. The jobs their residents relied on are disappearing. The residents with means are typically moving out (to the suburbs or Sun Belt cities), leaving behind the most at-risk residents.
>https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/24/18691792/chicago-econom...
The white enclaves you're talking about occupy a relatively small amount of real estate. The troubled South Side is comparatively vast.
Demographics may change, debt obligations do not.
==https://interactives.dallasnews.com/2017/the-85th/issue/pens...
You can drive to Lincolnshire or Kenilworth to see rich-folks compounds, in the suburbs. In Chicago, the white folks in Beverly and Oak Park and Evanston live in nice houses on small lots across the street from rougher neighborhoods. You'll find more metal gates in (rough) Lawndale than you will in (rich) Lincoln Park.
Also, what is this "ring" you're talking about? Can you be more specific?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loop_(CTA)
"The ring" turns up little particular to Chicago.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chicago+"the+ring"&ia=web
There's also "collar counties":
>His analysis of U.S. Census Data found that between 2005 and 2017, the city of Chicago’s 25-39 year-old age cohort grew 15.7 percent, while falling dramatically in the rest of Cook County (7.2 percent drop) as well as the metro area outside of Cook County (5.9 percent decline).
>In addition, between 2005-17, Chicago’s population of 25-44 year-olds with a bachelors degrees or additional advanced degrees grew 42 percent. As Saunders wrote in a Twitter thread sharing his findings, “An older, less educated, manufacturing-oriented populace is being replaced by a younger, more educated, knowledge-economy populace.” Chicago now has a higher share of college educated workers than the surrounding suburbs.
==https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/24/18691792/chicago-econom...
What you would have said about crime in Chicago in 1998 remains true today, with one possible change being that the 1990s gang crackdowns atomized the gangs and amplified the violence.
Sure it does. As working/middle-class jobs leave, neighborhoods who overwhelming relied on those jobs fall into a spiral of dis-investment, de-population and crime.
==the middle class northwest and bungalow belts==
I think this is the part you are missing. Neighborhoods like Portage Park, Jefferson Park, Old Irving Park, Norwood Park and Avondale on the northwest side are not the same middle-class neighborhoods they were 15 years ago. They have become upper-middle class neighborhoods filled with young families.
The traditional city workers who made these strong middle-class communities are getting priced out. The residency requirements are pushing them to other neighborhoods on the west and southwest side. This trend, along with future immigration may be the best hopes for revitalizing these neighborhoods.
==with one possible change being that the 1990s gang crackdowns atomized the gangs and amplified the violence. ==
Yes, breaking up the larger gangs has led to less-structured, block-by-block affiliations. That said, the homicide rate is lower today than it was in the 1990s.
Second, to the extent that these places have changed, none of these changes impact the fundamental dynamics of crime in Chicago. Neighborhoods are gradually gentrifying, sure. That's incompatible with the idea that neighborhood flight is worsening crime.
I think anyone who lived here in the 1990s would recognize pretty much the same Chicago in 2019, modulo the wifi in the cafes.
And I have two different co-workers and my tech company who have moved there in the past 5 years. These anecdotes aren't data, but show how personal experience drives perception.
==I think anyone who lived here in the 1990s would recognize pretty much the same Chicago in 2019, modulo the wifi in the cafes==
I think the data disagrees with you. Today, 39% of city residents have college degrees, in 1990, it was 19% [1]. The city has a higher percentage of residents with a college degree than larger, metro Chicago, the first time that has ever been the case. Other ways this can be observed is through the disappearance of the "Chicago accent". As more Big Ten graduates have migrated to the city from around the Midwest, the city's make-up has changed [2].
It relates to crime in the way these people have migrated. If the city was 1/3 working class, 1/3 middle class and 1/3 upper class 30 years ago; today it is more like 2/5 working class, 1/5 middle class, and 2/5 upper class. This mirrors what we have seen across the US economy. It reminds us of the quote, "Chicago is the most American of American cities."
This change has meant that previously working class neighborhoods have lost jobs, residents and investment. Those are the things that lead to increased levels of crime/violence. If we look at any Rust Belt city, we see high murder rates [3]:
>Out of the five metropolitan areas with the highest per capita murder rates, according to CBS News, four are deindustrialized cities: St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and Cleveland.
Chicago has managed to avoid much of the population loss and economic collapse of these cities, but still saw both happen over the past 40 years.
==Neighborhoods are gradually gentrifying, sure. That's incompatible with the idea that neighborhood flight is worsening crime.==
Except there are 77 neighborhoods, so 25 can be gentrifying and seeing lower crime while 5 are facing de-population and increased crime. It's pretty obvious when you look at the 3 most violent neighborhoods (community areas) of Austin, Garfield Park and Englewood. They are each seeing population decrease and together account for 25% of murders in the city.
[1] https://danielkayhertz.com/2019/05/15/out-of-state-college-g...
[2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/04/why-city-accents-are-fa...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/cbs/why-are-murder-rates-so...
Jeff Park is full of houses between 200-300k, and Zillow forecasts the median price there to drop to near 250k. That's data.
>3) Without adequate funding, crime has skyrocketed as the city continues to crumble, unable to provide basic services. This hits the poor disproportionately.
The demographics of the city are changing rapidly, anyone who lived here “years ago” and thinks they know about living here today is working with old data.