[dangwhy]

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.

[kasey_junk]

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.

[0] https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-river-north-crime-c...

[dangwhy]

> 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.

I didn't invoke any 'rhetoric'. you link shows which areas are no go zones. https://abc7chicago.com/feature/tracking-crime-and-safety-in...

> By that argument River North[0] is a no go zone.

you posted one solitary example. Argument isn't 'one shooting' makes no-go zone. Try to finding other examples and you'll see.

[tptacek]

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.

[tptacek]

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.

[dangwhy]

ok yea there are no 'no go zones' in USA per wikipedia.

[tptacek]

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".

[dangwhy]

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...

Woman, 40, hit by stray bullet while driving in Austin ( https://chicago.suntimes.com/2017/2/7/18389033/woman-40-hit-... )

13-year-old boy hit by stray bullet in South Austin, hospitalized (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/13-year-old-boy-critically...)

pretty sure this stuff never happened in oak park where you live for safety of your family.

'Its not no a go zone , its a problematic area' is not a very useful distinction for me.

[tptacek]

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.