Grand Rapids isn't on Lake Michigan, but on the Grand River.
I should have just said "western part of the state", I don't know what I was thinking.
From what I'm seeing, it is actually the return of families to the central city of places like Chicago that is driving change in the schools. It's exactly the inverse of what I've often believed. I posted a blog topic on this a while back, though I don't think most urban advocates would agree with some of my observations.
http://theurbanophile.blogspot.c...-what-
cost.html
Well, skimming your post (you're like me, we write too long...) I'd say that you do miss an important point.
Parents of children who stay in the city because they want the urban lifestyle don't necessarily deny their children by staying with local schools, because they are still providing the environment, income and other benefits to their children typically enjoyed by upper SES types. And I have to believe that this counts for a lot.
Plus...
This is tricky. I don't know what the deal is in Chicago. I presume that it is similar to DC -- that most of the schools, especially in lower income areas, suck -- but that a number of public schools in higher income areas don't suck, and that's where the high SES children tend to go to school.
In DC, that means that schools in Ward 3 are decent.
There is the Capitol Hill Cluster school set up in Ward 6, serving Capitol Hill.
But most schools in DC in the higher SES areas serve out of boundary children, typically from lower SES levels, and so this gets trickier.
Plus, you have an overall schlerotic system that is resistant to change. The parents discussed in the Chi. Trib article would have been ignored in DC.
Still would be except that the system is undergoing change and being forced to be responsive.
The issue isn't that change is ncecessary. It is. Although personally I doubt that the Fenty-Rhee administration have a real handle on the problems. They aver it is the teachers. It's the materiel in part, and also the overall management -- for years, most urban school systems have been focused on contracts, jobs and other spoils, not quality education.
I live in what I think of as a beautiful area (houses cost $400,000+). And it has what is a beautiful high school and elementary school campus a couple blocks away. But I talked to a student who would be going there, and I was amazed at how ill-prepared she seemed. And apparently the school isn't that great.
This pains me. But I don't have children.
Anyway, I write quite a bit about these issues, including about "positive deviance" and urban education. Look up a back issue.
P.S. your post about historic districts I would aver is flawed. If you have a flawed system, address that. But historic preservation is about the best tool out there to stabilize and improve center cities. Historic districts stabilized areas of cities for the many decades that cities were seen as undesirable, and when most people with choice chose the suburbs over the city.
Great blog, great post, but a point of correction about Cleveland - we aren't shrinking.
Yes, the city population has been cut in half, but the region has remained the same - just spread itself out over a larger area (I know, not good, but that's for a different topic).
Downtown, however, is on the rise - one of the fasting growing in the midwest with now about 10,000 people living down here and dozens of more projects either under construction or in the pipeline.
Additionally, the HealthLine will connect our two hubs of activity - Downtown and University Circle. This cluster of arts & culture, education, and medical excellence is one of the best in the world, and has also seen tremendous growth.
Regarding education, in Chicago there are a few excellent magnet schools and a couple public grade schools that are pretty good (e.g., Bell elementary), but on the whole the CPS district is pretty awful. The thing that troubles me most is less the schools themselves than the avowedly selfish motives of the parents for staying in the city. I'm basing this on people I personally know. It is clearly all about the parents' lifestyle.
Regarding historic preservation, an obvious passion of yours, I'm generally all for it. I think the urban renewal movement and many modern day demolitions are doing some simply awful things to our cities. However,
1. Historic preservation is but one value among many that we have. It has to be weighed in the balance like anything else. I don't support historic preservation uber alles anymore than I do "anything for the children" There are always competing, legitimate interests.
2. An excessive historic preservation focus privileges the past in a way I can't support. In effect, we want to deny ourselves the right we applaud previous generations for exercising, namely replacing one thing with something else. The world belongs in usufruct to the living. We have to be good stewards of the world, but I don't believe previous generations have the right to bind us with their built environment decisions anymore than we would consider ourselves bound by some of their more pernicious social policy notions.
3. While I'm not familiar with DC, I've yet to see historic preservation implemented in a way that is not abused. From what I've seen bond fide historic preservation often takes a back seat to other interests. As a matter of principle, I can't accept the violation of the rule of law that results from giving bureaucrats arbitrary power over private property. Rather, the better way to do it is to either landmark specific, limited structures, or come up with a list of rules that are more or less objective to avoid the problem of busybody neighbors exploiting historic preservation to obtain what they could never get through ordinary land use law.
And yes, I write way too much. At least my posting frequency is lower than you. I don't see how you possibly produce so much material!
(I know this isn't an entry about HP. In DC, where people would say the system is abused, I think it works pretty well. There are clear design guidelines in place (not always written) based on the period of architectural significance. They only cover exterior changes, new construction, and requests for demolition. They don't really prevent new projects. Some developers don't like HP regulations because it limits the ability to do teardowns or extract maximum FAR -- because mostly the underlying zoning allows for bigger projects than were typically done during the period of arch. significance. (This is an anomaly with zoning regs. that should have been corrected decades ago as it creates problems that didn't have to be.)
The thing about places for the living, and I agree with some of your points, is that at the same time, the rights of the individual can conflict with the rights and privileges of others.
For traditional center cities, there is no better tool than historic preservation for stabilizing and improving cities vis-a-vis other places and options within metropolitan regions.
DC would be like Newark if it weren't for historic preservation. That's why I end up being such a strong proponent. I see the impact on neighborhoods where it is in effect, and compare the impact to places that aren't designated. It's a world of difference, and slowed neighborhood-district improvement in those areas _not designated_ by decades.
I do understand the privileging point. But at the same time you have to look at citywide stabilization concerns and how a city maintains its revenue stream and the ability to provide public services. It can't do it if most of the population doesn't make much money and the property is relatively worthless.
Commenting by HaloScan
