<p>
[quote]
Tarhunt, I took offense only at this-
"If your son didn't get the grades he wanted, perhaps it's because he didn't earn them?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm the father of eight children, I love them all dearly, and I want them to succeed. I understand how it feels when they are in pain. It's a terrible feeling, and I feel for you.</p>
<p>I didn't mean what I said to be judgmental. But it is the most likely explanation. I don't know why he's not getting the grades he thinks he deserves, but my experience has been that, with a few exceptions, the grades one gets really are the grades one earns (except in my undergrad classes this year, where the grades one gets are much better than the grades one earns).</p>
<p>I can understand how he must feel isolated. Because of Chicago's house system, this must be a particularly difficult problem for transfers, though it's a real strength for those who matriculate there from their first years, I think. This is the kind of situation that would make almost anyone unhappy.</p>
<p>Just to clarify: upperclassmen are guaranteed housing all four years. When upperclassmen move off-campus, it's because off-campus is cheaper, larger, more accommodating, not attached to the dining halls, etc. If students study abroad or take a leave of absence, they sometimes lose their spot in housing.</p>
<p>This year, with overenrollment, it was also particularly difficult to fit kids in housing. A lot of forced triples in Shoreland, and about 20 first-years in Blackstone (which is like Stony Island).</p>
<p>The university is pushing on-campus housing more, as enrollment is going up and the new dorm is being built in a convenient location.</p>
<p>I actually heard there was a decreased in the forced triples in the Shoreland; at least, I know many rooms that were forced triples last year that are doubles this year. But, yeah, the Blackstone thing is weird.</p>
<p>It will interesting to see how the campus / neighboorhood dynamic changes when the Shoreland shuts down. I know one person on the current board of trustees who believes that the school will likely push to get rid of the other off site dorms within the next ten years or so, in a sense trying to bring everyone onto campus. The savings in policing and busing would be huge.</p>
<p>Re forced triples in Shoreland: My son was supposed to be in one, but only two people ever showed up. It is an OK double, but would be awful as a triple. Apparently it was a triple last year, but never before (and never after, one hopes).</p>
<p>Dorms on campus: The whole issue seems like delicate social ecology. The University has spent years trying to get people to invest in Hyde Park, with mixed success. Having students dispersed through the community, and essentially forcing half of them to live off campus (and having the campus police patrol the distant dorms and student areas) have done a lot to stabilize the university neighborhood. With the recent run-up in values and rampant gentrification, maybe that's not necessary anymore, and maybe all those students are holding the area back. But I wouldn't be so sure, and I wouldn't pull the rug out from under the landlords and businesses that rely on students until I was awfully sure that the area was going to improve, not disintegrate.</p>
<p>My friends have a what I think is a generously-sized double in the Shoreland. It's the smallest on the floor, and apparently was a triple the year before. Maybe your son has the same or a similar room? The triple would be a tad uncomfortable, but not inhumane. Still more room than Pierce! (Though Pierce, for reasons besides floor space, is a great dorm).</p>
<p>I don't know enough about how gentrification works and such to have a good answer to this one, in terms of how to improve Hyde Park. This is a topical issue, for sure, especially with the fate of the Hyde Park Co-Op in the university's hands. How is it that we have the cute little neighborhood that we have, and yet our retail and food options are sub-par?</p>
<p>JHS: The delicate social ecology is of course on their minds. I think there are two camps about this. One thinks Hyde Park is decent, and that maintaining the status quo is important. They want students to go out to places like 53rd for dinner from time to time or to walk up to the Coop for shopping. However, others see it as highly criminogenic and generally unattractive in terms of retail options, and would prefer a setup akin to that of Yale and its relation to inner city New Haven. That is, a very cloistered campus (potentially partially gated along the lines of Burton Judson), and bordered immediately by trade up establishments like Starbucks, Jamba Juice, Au Bon Pain, Dean & Deluca, Trader Joes, etcetera, so that students can reap both the convenience and safety of not having to mix with the local environment. An unspoken presumption behind this of course is that local citizens will not be able to afford to shop at most of these stores and they will be effectively only used by university affiliates. This simultaneously has the effect of deflecting a lot of charges related to the presence of students by community members: gentrification, noise issues, parking problems, messing with their store choices, as it becomes clear what part of the town belongs to whom. The fact that the University invested early in a quad structure and adhered to the existing street grid system creates boundaries that keep such an investment strategy perennially on the table. </p>
<p>Unalove: U of C students aside due to the inherent selection effect, most people do not find Hyde Park cute. You have to bear in mind that it is ultimately a black ghetto to the majority of those who work downtown (save perhaps for the cluster of buildings along Lakeshore Dr.), only marginally better than, and all to close to, Cottage Grove. While I think this is an extreme characterization, when you compare it to living in even the seedier parts of the loop Hyde Park does come up far short. As a result, it lacks the critical mass of monied buyers to maintain the shopping outlets mentioned above. Arguably the biggest problem is that young families of professionals refuse to move in, since whatever they gain in rental savings is washed out by the fact they would have to pay private tuition to avoid the neighborhood public schools. Indeed, the lab school gets the generous funding it does from the University endowment since without the tuition breaks afforded to faculty children, you would see very few professors living anywhere near the university. I laughed at Barack Obamas Democratic debate contention that his kids would clearly go to public school if were not for the fact that the lab school was on the way to Michelle Obamas office.</p>
<p>Penn is a lot like Chicago in some ways. It also doesn't have enough on-campus housing, and its on-campus housing is mostly VERY unattractive. (If its high-rises were public housing, they would have been imploded 10 years ago.) But in terms of amenities, the Penn area is light-years beyond Hyde Park, because the university has been working steadily to make certain the amenities are there. That even includes public schools -- the university created a new neighborhood public school under a management contract with the School Board. That has been extremely important in attracting faculty, staff, and non-affiliated yuppies to the university area.</p>
<p>My take on Hyde Park is very different, by the way, although I have spent only days, not years, there. The "nice part" by the lake extends at least to the university campus, and a considerable way inland north of the campus. If there were more nice stores, etc., and schools, and better access to the Els, it would be very attractive to people with only a tenuous connection to U of C, and honestly it seems pretty well gentrified now. Rents aren't that high for student housing, but they sure aren't low, either.</p>
<p>Also -- Yale's residential college system is a big draw, no question about it. And deservedly -- it's the optimal undergraduate experience in my view. Yale's relationship to New Haven: not a big draw.</p>
<p>Chicago is not in a position to duplicate the residential college system, much as it might like to. That would require demolishing each and every one of its existing dorms, including Max and the one they haven't finished yet, and building new ones with completely different designs. (Much more variation in rooms, many more facilities, dining halls everywhere.) Yale is talking about spending a quarter of a billion dollars to build about 1,000 new dorm slots in two new residential colleges.</p>
<p>If you're not going to do that, having Hyde Park be a vibrant, interesting, attractive community is the way to go, not cloistrophobia.</p>
<p>When I think of Hyde Park as "cute," I think of the homes that go for a few million around Obamaville (53rd and Greenwoodish) and the homes along Dorchester, Blackstone, etc. which are all old and palacial. The "student ghetto" (55th to 53rdish, Woodlawn to Kimbarkish) is also quite pretty, IMO. (MAC as a landlord, though, is another problem!)</p>
<p>The neighborhood is beautiful (in some sections, at least) and there are at least some families with a good deal of money. I see your point about making residents of the neighborhood feel unwelcome if we were to yank the Co-Op and put a Dean and Deluca there.</p>
<p>Arapollo: check the other thread on this topic.</p>
<p>I think mixed use is the way to go. Even if a model like Yale's might be marginally better for students (not residential colleges but clearly marked boundries), and I believe it is unclear if it would, the negative externality it would impose on the community would be high. Scale back the police presence and lose some key stores due to a lack of student patronage and before you know it Hyde Park does become just another South Side burnout. Right now, I think it is manageable urban living for students.</p>
<p>The nice thing about Hyde Park is that there are some U of C- centric hangouts. I think they add a sense of community and spirit. </p>
<p>Examples of cool U of C student-focused retail/food: Cafe Istria, Medici, Powell's/Seminary Coop/57th Street Books, One World Cafe, Calypso, Cedars, Thai 55/Snail/ the other one, Hyde Park Produce, Hookah Lounge, Starbucks</p>
<p>Then there are resources that are split between U of C students and the community: Kimbark Liquors, CVS, Walgreens, Co-Op (food Co-Op), Subway, etc. </p>
<p>Then there are places that are primarily for the non U of C community: Sammy's (57th and Cottage Grove), Ossama's Hair Salon, some 53rd and 51st street retail.</p>
<p>I don't know if it's the ideal setup, but it is what it is.</p>
<p>Re: the services in the community: the restaurant-and-store situation stinks so badly, and is so persistent across the last 30 years despite the size of the middle-class population and the inconvenience of driving to Roosevelt for a decent grocery store, that I have to wonder if the available work force may be part of the issue.</p>
<p>It's amazing how national chains that rigidly control their service personnel everywhere else offer god-awful service in Hyde Park. Even chains that are known for their efficient, capable service -- like Potbelly's -- are far worse in Hyde Park than in the Loop. I once had a cashier at the Hyde Park Walgreens who was so spectacularly inappropriate that I can't even relate the story on a family message board. I have to wonder whether other businesses are discouraged from opening in the neighborhood by the difficulty in finding and keeping good staff.</p>
<p>"I see your point about making residents of the neighborhood feel unwelcome if we were to yank the Co-Op and put a Dean and Deluca there."</p>
<p>The neighborhood's big enough to support diverse services, like a Whole Foods AND a Dominick's (especially when you consider that there are no supermarkets for several miles in any direction outside of Hyde Park). When I was growing up, there was the Co-Op and two locations of Mr. G's, Campus Foods, and several convenience stores. The population has gone up since then.</p>