What? My town has three libraries alone, all of which are large, spacious, extremely clean, super quiet, full of great material, and are constantly full of well behaved citizens. You're not describing a feature of modern libraries. You're describing a local problem.
There is usually a huge congregation of homeless there by afternoon. And its even worse inside the library. You get hit with stench as soon as you open the library door.
Sucks because libarians have exceptional knowledge that any book lover would enjoy talking to.
> You're describing a local problem.
Unless you are suggesting middle class can only exist in the burbs and small towns.
I 've lived in pilsen chicago for over 25 yrs, this is my home. Hate to relocate in next few yrs because now i have newborn.
Agreed. I live in a city with a noticeable homeless problem, but our extensive system of libraries is perfectly safe.
Now, ten or twenty years ago, the main branch downtown was in what certain conservative commentators might have called a "no-go zone"—but really the neighborhood around the library was fine. It seemed to me that the drug gangs in the area back then had some kind of unspoken agreement that the library was neutral (dare I say sacred?) ground.
you know there are actual no go zones like austin area in chicago. Why are you hiding behind 'conservative commentators' as a cover for your statement.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I spend about 60 minutes in Austin (the Chicago neighborhood) every day, and live across a street from it. Austin is not a "no go zone". Residents of one of the wealthiest suburbs in Chicago routinely bike through it on their way to work in the Loop.
> Man, 38, shot in the face in Austin.
> The 38-year-old was walking on the sidewalk when someone started shooting around 10:20 p.m. in the 4900 block of West Hubbard Street, according to police.
> Austin Neighbors Are Helping Each Other Get Mental Health Care After Shootings Near Preschool
> Some kids said they were too scared to play outside after hearing gunfire, a preschool leader said. A 20-year-old woman was killed and two men were wounded in two shootings days apart.
With respect, your argument is poorly informed and seems extrapolated from media stories. I don't know if you live in Chicagoland or not --- the belief you're expounding on is prevalent in suburban Chicago as well. It's false.
Once again: one of the wealthiest suburbs in Chicago is directly adjacent to Austin. I live in that suburb, across a street (that street would be Austin) from the neighborhood. People in Oak Park commute, on bicycles, through Austin. Notably, in the ~20 years I've lived here, I haven't heard a single story about any of those people being shot. Austin residents patronize our businesses. Much of Austin is middle class.
Austin is a troubled neighborhood (it is literally ground zero for US housing segregation), but it is absolutely not a "no-go zone". Words mean things. Ironically, people who "go" to Austin are probably much safer (essentially they _are_ safe there) than young male Black residents, who are the exclusive targets of the gang violence that occurs there.
You get the same weird arguments about the neighborhoods immediately surrounding Hyde Park on the south side, and the same rebuttals apply.
its not "argument" though, i don't see what 'wealthiest suburbs' have to do with shootings in austin. Yes suburbs including the one you live in are safer. Not sure what that has to do with anything. CabriniGreen used to be next to rivernorth.
> I don't know if you live in Chicagoland or not
I've lived in pilsen for last 25 years and grew up here. I don't live in the burbs. I know what 'no go zones' mean, the block i grew up on in west pilsen used to be one ( but not anymore) . I now live on the edge of 'no go zone' in pilsen ( east of western ) . My wife works for charter school in englewood where i do weekly drop off and pickup. Englewood is a 'no go' zone for us, meaning we won't go there if we have no business being there, we never make a stop in that neighborhood ( like the cyclists you mention) .
you choose live white majority suburb with double the median income but not in austin. That revealed preference proves that Austin was a 'no go' zone for you? Going to coffeshop once in a while doesn't really count, imo.
> is absolutely not a "no-go zone". Words mean things.
You said austin is not a no go zone, can you give me an example of an area considered no go zone. Perhaps that will clarify.
> Notably, in the ~20 years I've lived here, I haven't heard a single story about any of those people being shot.
I just gave you two examples from last 2 months of ppl getting shot by stray bullets. What does you personally hearing about cyclists have to do with anything? This type of statement is really hard to respond to.
Look. This is an exceedingly stupid thread and I should know better than to comment on it. But clearly you 2 are arguing about the definition of a “no-go” zone, which is not rigorously defined.
But you’ve posited in this comment that one criteria is the count of people getting shot in the last month. By that argument River North[0] is a no go zone. Which, perhaps it is for you, but thats not an interesting social commentary because it means that effectively all urban US neighborhoods are. Just say you won’t go to US urban environments. We get it.
At the end of the day, in Chicago, the tragic gun violence problem is real. But counter-intuitively its not real for people that _visit_ neighborhoods. Its real for the young men that live there. And by invoking “no-go” rhetoric you hide the real problem. That years of public policy have made certain neighborhoods extremely dangerous for those that live there, but ironically, not for those that visit.
> Just say you won’t go to US urban environments. We get it.
I grew up in pilsen which was gang controlled 'no go zone' until it got gentrified over last 1-2 decades on the east side. We knew which gangs controlled which areas, we are only a few blocks away from El Chapo's 'The Pilsen twins' family home ( never saw them though) . People who live here and raise families here know where 'no go zones' are and stay away from. If you visit any local here for a few you will get a lecture about which areas are 'no go' gang controlled zones ( south of cermak and west of western).
Ofcouse, you can 'go' to gentrified restaurants and coffee shops on 18th st/Thalia hall and get 'the experience' for outsiders and suburbanites. Doesn't mean there aren't no go zones in pilsen.
It frustrating to me that people who chose live in white segregated suburbs ( 'for aesthetic reasons', code for not too many non whites ) and send their kids to segregated schools are lecturing us what words to use and what to call ourselves. I personally detest these white ppl more than Tucker Carlson types. Yes they are 'no go zones' and govt/community should fix it, calling them 'problematic areas' instead isn't a fix.
Dude, don't call parts of Chicago "no-go zones" and then try to high-horse residential segregation. I'm up front about how my decisions have fed into our pathologies. Try to be more honest about yours.
We considered Oak Park and Lincoln Square in the city proper for aesthetic reasons, and chose Oak Park for the schools (I'm retrospectively unhappy we did that, since we contributed to school segregation by opting into a de facto private school system, but whatever).
But even if we hadn't, and we'd simply chosen Oak Park over Austin, that wouldn't be a "revealing" preference. Austin is troubled and disinvested, again by dint of being the literal ground zero for post-redlining US housing segregation. At the beginning of the 1970s Austin was majority white; by the end it was over 90% Black, because of panic selling and white flight. There aren't that many restaurants, few grocery stores, &c, all as a result (if you're a middle class family in Austin, chances are you shop in Oak Park).
I think Austin is pretty neat; wide tree-lined blocks with some great, big houses. But I'm not arguing that it's unproblematic. It certainly is.
As for the definition of "no-go zone", Wikipedia's will suffice. Austin compares with literally none of the many examples given. You can go to Austin; you will be just fine.
Incidentally: people in Chicago have generally the same feelings about Auburn and Grand Crossing as they do about Englewood, but people still go to Lem's. It's true: I have no reason to go to Englewood. I also know less about it than I know about Austin. But Austin is simply not a no-go zone.
I don't know if there are or there aren't, but none of the descriptions of "no-go zones" anywhere in the world on Wikipedia apply to Austin. I'm not arguing "it's not a no-go zone because Wikipedia doesn't list it as one"; I'm saying the definition simply doesn't apply. You can go there. You will be fine. People go there constantly.
Cabrini Green, by the way? Never a no-go zone. I went to high school across the street from the old ABLA high-rises. Housing projects do not equate to "no-go zones".
yea for sure if you are using wikipedia definition ( but you mentioned something about cyclists and stray bullets) . No city or town in USA qualifies that definition. We use 'don't take your kids to the park there' definition in our neighborhood ( maybe what you are referring to as 'problematic') . I wouldn't take my kids to austin parks where stray bullets are flying around. Maybe we are more aware of this stuff than ppl in burbs because our neighborhood in pilsen is not completely safe even now. We have to be extra caution going out with kids .
https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/02/15/facing-spike-in-murd...
Totally false. It happened just last weekend in Oak Park, and a few months earlier at a gas station in Oak Park (that resulted in us, idiotically, banning 24/7 gas stations).
If you'd just said "places like Austin have high crime" or something, we wouldn't be on this thread. But you said it was a "no-go zone", doubled down, then walked the definition back to "places I'd be comfortable hanging out with my kid in the park".
We can be done with the thread now; I'm happy with what it says about our respective arguments. My suggestion is maybe strike the term "no-go zone" from your vocabulary. It's mostly politically charged bullshit. But in any of its reasonable definitions, it doesn't apply to Austin, and didn't apply to Cabrini.
I live in a smaller city / large town and the local libraries are pretty dangerous-feeling with lots of cops & homeless folks. My anecdata doesn't match yours; actual data may be more useful.
What town is that? As I go through my life experiences, every affluent place I've lived in my state, NC, has had decent libraries. They are used mostly by kids and old people, anecdotally.
I laughed on the inside a bit when I considered the fact that a public library existed just a few blocks down from the library of a large public university. But this was my youthful ignorance. Anyone could walk in the university library and open a book (well, you could at that time, not so sure about anymore) but you had to have a school ID card to check out a book or access the computer system.
Before cell phones, I visited libraries traveling around the coast. The computers were 100% taken. There was a line to get one, and the librarian directed us to a scheduling system. These were people who needed to use a computer and the internet to apply to a job. Access was scarce, low-quality, and competency to use those tools were lacking.
Nowadays, cell phones have mostly taken away that niche of the past. I'm not sure if or why the people there still need the libraries.
Ive tried making a resume or applying for jobs on a phone, it’s doable but much easier and more pleasant to do for two hours on a desktop. Fewer people have up to date desktop computers so I see the need for this continuing.
