5 ms·

Oak Park is a suburb next to Chicago that managed to integrate fairly well, but when reading how it happened I was struck at how draconian it was handled. They

by neaden 10y ago

Oak Park is a suburb next to Chicago that managed to integrate fairly well, but when reading how it happened I was struck at how draconian it was handled. They purposefully wanted an integrated city and tried to sotftly limit or "steer" how many Black people moved in, and to spread them throughout the whole city. There were restrictions on who could sell your home. For sale signs were banned even. They expanded the police force to assure people they would still be safe. In short they used quite a bit of government force to establish an integrated city with no noticeable Black or White area. And it worked, even today it's one of the most integrated suburbs of the city. I'm honestly not sure what lesson we should take from it.

kasey_junk 10y ago
Hyde Park on the cities south side is similar. It started out in a draconian battle against integration, and then switched to a draconian battle for integration. It didn't hurt that the University of Chicago drove most of the land ownership and maintained a massive private police force. I'm with you, not sure what the lesson was, but it led to an integrated neighborhood.
negamax 10y ago
Same policy in Singapore. All government houses is distributed as such that people from all backgrounds (religions) get intermingled.
- seanwilson 10y ago
  Any views on how well it worked and if it was a good idea?
  - negamax 10y ago
    It was a great idea. Singapore is harmonious and everyone understands each other better, to a major part because of this. People who grow up in singular neighbourhoods simply don't realise what they are missing in understanding each other. Attending each other's weddings, funerals; talking about political issues forms a strong bond above religious lines
- neaden 10y ago
  Does this try to prevent immigrant neighborhoods from forming as well? In the US at least my perception is that immigrant neighborhoods that mainly have first and second generation residents are viewed much more favorably even though they are a form of segregation. The upshot is they allow people to find others that speak their language and stores that sell their food.
  - negamax 10y ago
    My understanding is that this policy is enforced on government housing. Which is really well done and highly subsidised. Many immigrants rent such units, and that does help them understanding the country better
movengeance 10y ago
WBEZ had a great article on the history of Oak Park's for-sale sign ban, and how it helped to shape the town's integration. The ban was effectively born to fight blockbusting, which preyed on homeowners' fears of loss of property values, but slathered with a nice greasy layer of racial fear. Blockbusting represents the scummiest sort of real estate profiteering; but more damagingly, it plays directly into patterns of institutional racism. It's nearly unbelievable that something as simple as /not allowing the posting of For Sale signs/ can quell a lot of concerns about negative changes to the neighborhood. https://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/not-in-your-front-yard-why-for-sale-signs-are-banned-in-oak-park/5d93f1e7-8540-495c-bbca-6bc7a4430702 https://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/not-in-your-front-ya...
dismantlethesun 10y ago
That's a fair assessment of how integration was handled in most schools too. On the face of it, its extremely draconian, but how can you reverse 50+ years of institutional segregation without the government becoming involved?
- neaden 10y ago
  I'm not sure if there is another way. It's a worthy goal, and I'm not opposed to the government being involved. The part that seems the most questionable to me was the steering of Black families to not live next to each other, spreading them out in the city. I understand why it was done but it just seems so controlling and paternalistic.
  - dismantlethesun 10y ago
    That's how desegregation of schools occurred---bussing black children to far off neighbourhoods. It was paternalistic, but I think it was less looked down upon because it acted on actual children instead of adults.
    - neaden 10y ago
      Agreed. It is also amazing to think about what would happen if a city were to try to do something like this today. I think it could never happen and it would be all over the national media.
      - dismantlethesun 10y ago
        When did the situation in Chicago happen?
        elptacek 10y ago
        Start here: http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1050.html http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1050.html
cameldrv 10y ago
I grew up in Oak Park, and the result is remarkable, I don't know of any other place like it, especially before it got so much more expensive, in the 80s and 90s. I knew vaguely that this was somewhat engineered, but I never knew to what degree until I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4dzaRJfLpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4dzaRJfLpo which is an interview with Roberta Raymond, the architect of Oak Park's successful integration. Some of the things that were done: 1. Provide cheap insurance to homeowners against price declines, so that they would not fear the neighborhood flipping to African American and losing their investment. 2. Creating the Oak Park Regional Housing Center, a essentially a non-profit real estate agency not subject to many of the discrimination laws. 3. Agressive code enforcement against apartment building owners who might let properties decline in anticipation of the neighborhood going African-American and low income, but being willing to negotiate if they put their listings exclusively with the Housing Center. 4. Testing real estate agents for violation of fair housing laws, but agreeing to let them slide if they agreed to list exclusively with the Housing Center. 5. Creating an investment vehicle to purchase blighted apartment buildings, listing exclusively through the Housing Center. 5. Making the housing center staff specifically steer based on race, but in the opposite of the normal direction. They would only show all-white buildings to black customers, and show white customers to majority black buildings. The Housing Center did similar steering for single family houses. The specific goal was "a black a block" so that most residents would have an African American neighbor, but that clusters would not form that could cause momentum for houses to sell. 6. School districts drawn to evenly spread out African Americans among all of the schools. 7. Direct community outreach with police visits and conversations with people on the block that might object to an African American resident on their block. 8. Making For Sale signs on lawns illegal. All in all, an absolutely amazing and masterful piece of social engineering, that has not to my knowledge been replicated anywhere else. That said, this is all fairly heavy handed, and IMO goes right up to, and perhaps past the line of legality.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The part that seems flawed to me is that some racial groups are statistically much less likely to be high income earners. As prices increase tremendously, like you said happened here, you're going to be pushing out these racial groups. It seems like this is an experiment in creating gentrification and displacing disadvantaged minority groups.
tptacek 10y ago
I live in Oak Park, right on its eastern boundary with Austin (near one of the most homogeneously black neighborhoods in Chicago). One of the things I like about my block is that it's almost evenly divided black/white. But the more expensive center of Oak Park is less well integrated, and some of the same city dynamics that produce disparities elsewhere are at play in Oak Park, too. It also helps that Oak Park is tiny. You can walk across it in like 20 minutes.
- elptacek 10y ago
  Sorry to correct you, dear... I think there are 5 or 6 completely white households on our block out of 39 houses total.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Do you agree with me that Oak Park is not uniformly well integrated? (I wonder if my perception of it isn't accurate.)
    - elptacek 10y ago
      Oh, yes. It is definitely not uniformly integrated. If you took a census, I suspect you'd find that the distribution of racial diversity in Oak Park is a direct reflection of the distribution of racial diversity plotted against income level, consistent with the geographic area distribution.

by neaden 10y ago

kasey_junk 10y ago

Hyde Park on the cities south side is similar. It started out in a draconian battle against integration, and then switched to a draconian battle for integration. It didn't hurt that the University of Chicago drove most of the land ownership and maintained a massive private police force. I'm with you, not sure what the lesson was, but it led to an integrated neighborhood.

negamax 10y ago

Same policy in Singapore. All government houses is distributed as such that people from all backgrounds (religions) get intermingled.

seanwilson 10y ago
Any views on how well it worked and if it was a good idea?
- negamax 10y ago
  It was a great idea. Singapore is harmonious and everyone understands each other better, to a major part because of this. People who grow up in singular neighbourhoods simply don't realise what they are missing in understanding each other. Attending each other's weddings, funerals; talking about political issues forms a strong bond above religious lines
neaden 10y ago
Does this try to prevent immigrant neighborhoods from forming as well? In the US at least my perception is that immigrant neighborhoods that mainly have first and second generation residents are viewed much more favorably even though they are a form of segregation. The upshot is they allow people to find others that speak their language and stores that sell their food.
- negamax 10y ago
  My understanding is that this policy is enforced on government housing. Which is really well done and highly subsidised. Many immigrants rent such units, and that does help them understanding the country better

movengeance 10y ago

WBEZ had a great article on the history of Oak Park's for-sale sign ban, and how it helped to shape the town's integration. The ban was effectively born to fight blockbusting, which preyed on homeowners' fears of loss of property values, but slathered with a nice greasy layer of racial fear. Blockbusting represents the scummiest sort of real estate profiteering; but more damagingly, it plays directly into patterns of institutional racism. It's nearly unbelievable that something as simple as /not allowing the posting of For Sale signs/ can quell a lot of concerns about negative changes to the neighborhood. https://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/not-in-your-front-yard-why-for-sale-signs-are-banned-in-oak-park/5d93f1e7-8540-495c-bbca-6bc7a4430702 https://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/not-in-your-front-ya...

dismantlethesun 10y ago

That's a fair assessment of how integration was handled in most schools too. On the face of it, its extremely draconian, but how can you reverse 50+ years of institutional segregation without the government becoming involved?

neaden 10y ago
I'm not sure if there is another way. It's a worthy goal, and I'm not opposed to the government being involved. The part that seems the most questionable to me was the steering of Black families to not live next to each other, spreading them out in the city. I understand why it was done but it just seems so controlling and paternalistic.
- dismantlethesun 10y ago
  That's how desegregation of schools occurred---bussing black children to far off neighbourhoods. It was paternalistic, but I think it was less looked down upon because it acted on actual children instead of adults.
  - neaden 10y ago
    Agreed. It is also amazing to think about what would happen if a city were to try to do something like this today. I think it could never happen and it would be all over the national media.
    - dismantlethesun 10y ago
      When did the situation in Chicago happen?
      - elptacek 10y ago
        Start here: http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1050.html http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1050.html

cameldrv 10y ago

I grew up in Oak Park, and the result is remarkable, I don't know of any other place like it, especially before it got so much more expensive, in the 80s and 90s. I knew vaguely that this was somewhat engineered, but I never knew to what degree until I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4dzaRJfLpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4dzaRJfLpo which is an interview with Roberta Raymond, the architect of Oak Park's successful integration. Some of the things that were done: 1. Provide cheap insurance to homeowners against price declines, so that they would not fear the neighborhood flipping to African American and losing their investment. 2. Creating the Oak Park Regional Housing Center, a essentially a non-profit real estate agency not subject to many of the discrimination laws. 3. Agressive code enforcement against apartment building owners who might let properties decline in anticipation of the neighborhood going African-American and low income, but being willing to negotiate if they put their listings exclusively with the Housing Center. 4. Testing real estate agents for violation of fair housing laws, but agreeing to let them slide if they agreed to list exclusively with the Housing Center. 5. Creating an investment vehicle to purchase blighted apartment buildings, listing exclusively through the Housing Center. 5. Making the housing center staff specifically steer based on race, but in the opposite of the normal direction. They would only show all-white buildings to black customers, and show white customers to majority black buildings. The Housing Center did similar steering for single family houses. The specific goal was "a black a block" so that most residents would have an African American neighbor, but that clusters would not form that could cause momentum for houses to sell. 6. School districts drawn to evenly spread out African Americans among all of the schools. 7. Direct community outreach with police visits and conversations with people on the block that might object to an African American resident on their block. 8. Making For Sale signs on lawns illegal. All in all, an absolutely amazing and masterful piece of social engineering, that has not to my knowledge been replicated anywhere else. That said, this is all fairly heavy handed, and IMO goes right up to, and perhaps past the line of legality.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
The part that seems flawed to me is that some racial groups are statistically much less likely to be high income earners. As prices increase tremendously, like you said happened here, you're going to be pushing out these racial groups. It seems like this is an experiment in creating gentrification and displacing disadvantaged minority groups.

tptacek 10y ago

I live in Oak Park, right on its eastern boundary with Austin (near one of the most homogeneously black neighborhoods in Chicago). One of the things I like about my block is that it's almost evenly divided black/white. But the more expensive center of Oak Park is less well integrated, and some of the same city dynamics that produce disparities elsewhere are at play in Oak Park, too. It also helps that Oak Park is tiny. You can walk across it in like 20 minutes.

elptacek 10y ago
Sorry to correct you, dear... I think there are 5 or 6 completely white households on our block out of 39 houses total.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Do you agree with me that Oak Park is not uniformly well integrated? (I wonder if my perception of it isn't accurate.)
  - elptacek 10y ago
    Oh, yes. It is definitely not uniformly integrated. If you took a census, I suspect you'd find that the distribution of racial diversity in Oak Park is a direct reflection of the distribution of racial diversity plotted against income level, consistent with the geographic area distribution.