Such was New York’s investment in Harlem (p. 99) and so could be Bronzeville, yet it has suffered the same problems of violence and stagnation that characterized the infamous “black belt” of Chicago (p. 14). Beneath the veneer of restoration, Moore exposes the parallels is shares with notorious decayed projects and clogged black middle-class neighborhoods. In the case of Bronzeville what began as a social construction of younger generations of blacks, investing in of what could be a revitalized historic municipal of Chicago found gentrification more fiction than reality. The crime was still present for early investors, just as it is in even the most stalwart of black neighborhoods, but the true problem was the lack of support and additional investment by the city. But the true wrongdoing was attempting to alter the neighborhood from its refurbished potential, endeavor to change the cultural connotation the neighborhood held for black Chicagoans. Instead of preserving the rich history and potential officials spearheaded “affordable housing” (p. 105) heedless of local protest from black denizens, a reoccurring theme of the city. Not to mention the “$150 million” (p. 95) worth of funds that is leaked from the neighborhood annually, which gives precedent to the lack of investment in the “fable Black Metropolis” (p.
Such was New York’s investment in Harlem (p. 99) and so could be Bronzeville, yet it has suffered the same problems of violence and stagnation that characterized the infamous “black belt” of Chicago (p. 14). Beneath the veneer of restoration, Moore exposes the parallels is shares with notorious decayed projects and clogged black middle-class neighborhoods. In the case of Bronzeville what began as a social construction of younger generations of blacks, investing in of what could be a revitalized historic municipal of Chicago found gentrification more fiction than reality. The crime was still present for early investors, just as it is in even the most stalwart of black neighborhoods, but the true problem was the lack of support and additional investment by the city. But the true wrongdoing was attempting to alter the neighborhood from its refurbished potential, endeavor to change the cultural connotation the neighborhood held for black Chicagoans. Instead of preserving the rich history and potential officials spearheaded “affordable housing” (p. 105) heedless of local protest from black denizens, a reoccurring theme of the city. Not to mention the “$150 million” (p. 95) worth of funds that is leaked from the neighborhood annually, which gives precedent to the lack of investment in the “fable Black Metropolis” (p.