ABSTRACT THE EVOLVING RESIDENTIAL PATTERN OF THE MEXICAN, PUERTO RICAN AND CUBAN PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO BY Gerald w. Ropka The Latin Americans are the leading immigrant group and constitute the second largest minority population in the United States today. Since they are now showing a trend toward urban locations, there is a need to know more about their roles in the develOpment of the settlement pat- tern of our cities. While the study of Spanish-Speaking people in conjunction with the develOpment of urban areas has attracted the interest of some geographers and other scholars, most have analyzed only one national group in one location, e.g., the Mexicans in Los Angeles, the Puerto Ricans in New York City, or the Cubans in Miami. This study investigates the spatial evolution of all three of the Spanish-speaking groups in Chicago, the Mexicans, Puerto "Q-n 1‘4 .- ‘H ”I 0" on. (I! (—0 Gerald w. Ropka Ricans and Cubans and focuses on three major topics: 1) the first movement of Latin Americans into the City and the influences effecting the settlement pattern that evolved: 2) the pattern of Latin American residential develOpment compared with that of previous EurOpean groups and the interrelationships with other ethnic groups, es- pecially the Blacks, and 3) the internal organization of the Spanish-speaking areas and the interactions and indi- vidual settlement preferences of the three groups involved. The study disclosed several important facts. First, there is not one single center of Spanish-speaking settlement in Chicago but three. Also, while three national groups are represented they often do not occupy the same areas. When they do, there is often as much spatial sep- aration as possible maintained between them. Therefore, the term ”community" does not apply in the complete sense. The major influences on settlement were the avail- ability of inexpensive housing, job opportunity and the desire for each national group to locate in close proximity, often near friends or relatives. Since poor quality, low income housing is found in many of the older areas of the 'City, job preference played an important role in the early settlement decision. The Mexicans showed a preference for Gerald w. Ropka jobs in the heavier industries which were often located away from the center of the city. The Cubans and Puerto Ricans tended to associate themselves more with the commercial ac- tivity of the central business district making the availa— bility of public tranSportation more important for them. The Mexicans appeared to be more ethnically oriented and develOped business districts to meet their particular needs. They also organized activities to help preserve their cultural identity. The Cubans and Puerto Ricans demonstrated less of this. Between 1960 and 1970, the city's Latin American pOpulation more than doubled. This was accompanied by a decided shift in their settlement pattern toward the north. In 1970, nearly all of the City's Cubans and Puerto Ricans and a growing number of Mexicans were living there. It ap- pears that the northern and northwestern areas will continue to attract Latin newcomers and those shifting from earlier residential areas within the city. The Black/Latin American association was found to be very important. The strongest competition for jobs and housing came from the Blacks. As the Blacks expanded their residential pattern, the Spanish-speakers felt compelled to evacuate some of their previous settlement area. Since the Gerald w. Ropka Latin Americans and the Blacks will probably constitute a majority of the City's pOpulation by 1980, the competition for housing will become even more important. As there ap— pears to be a desire on the part of most Latin Americans to remain as separated as possible frOm the Black community, their future residential pattern will undoubtedly show greater nucleation of Spanish-Speakers in the northern area of the city and more abandonment of the central and southern areas as the Blacks continue to gain in population there. Therefore, the future settlement pattern of the Latin Americans in Chicago may be more of a reflection of their movement away from Black dominated areas than of any other factor. THE EVOLVING RESIDENTIAL PATTERN OF THE MEXICAN, PUERTO RICAN AND CUBAN POPULATION IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO BY 3 1" Gerald w;“ opka A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1973 f 13 .tazle 2552 R13€ Cassi in feta at t ‘ fir I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the assistance given me in conducting this research and preparing this study. I am eSpecially grateful to my committee chairman Dr. Ian .Matley, who picked me up and helped me re-organize my dissertation after the untimely death of Dr. Paul Morrison caused me to abandon my original prOposal, and the other members of my committee Dr. Lawrence Sommers, Dr. Daniel Jacdbson and Dr. Clarence Vinge who accepted this new re- search topic with enthusiasm at a time when my own was at a low ebb. Also, I want to thank the many peOple in Chicago who gave me their time and helped locate and discuss the data needed for this study, eSpecially Ms. Julia McDonald at the 0.5. Department of Commerce: those who granted me personal interviews, and the people in the Spanish-speaking areas who were willing to discuss their situation with me and ply my young son with candy and cookies. Most of all, I thank my wife Barbara who gave me encouragement and helped keep me going during my "low" 11 periods in the last thirteen years of classes, papers, studies and theses. Also my children Stacie, Sheryl and Steven who learned to understand that there were many days when they had to play quietly because daddy had to study. 111 TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. ILLUSTRATIONS. . INTRODUCTION. . CONTENTS Statement of the Problem. Methodological Approach . Related Literature. Value of the Study. THE GENERAL IMMIGRATION PATTERN SPEAKING PEOPLE INTO THE UNITED General Pattern of Immigration. . . . Colonial Period to 1880 . . . . . . The Period 1880 to 1920 . . . . . . 1920 to the Present Summary . . THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OF CHICAGO. . Early Settlement Patterns 1800-1880 . 1880-1920 . 1920-1970 . The Mexicans in Chicago . in Chicago. The Puerto Ricans in Chicago. . . . . The Cuban Movement to Chicago . . . . Summary . . . 0 iv OF SPANISH STATES. IMMIGRANT POPULATION Page ii vii viii 11 14 16 17 17 21 25 32 34 34 34 42 46 48 51 S4 59 we: VI VII Chapter IV. VI. VII. THE 1960 SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF SPANISH- SPEAKING PEOPLE IN CHICAGO. . . . . The Mapping Procedure . . . . . . . The Relative Criteria Method. . . The Absolute Criteria Method. . . Area I: The Near North. . . . . . . Area II: The Central West . . . . . Area III: The Far South . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA. . Ethnic Characteristics. . . . . . . The Primary Study Area. . . . . . The Near North. . . . . . . . . . The Central West. . . . . . . . . The Far South . . . . . . . . . . The Black Population. . . . . . . . Ethnic Association in the Secondary Area. Black Association in the Secondary Area . smary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE 1960 STUDY AREA 0 o o e o o o e e e o o a Housing Characteristics . . . . . . Public Housing. . . . . . . . . . Substandard Housing . . . . . . . Gross Rent. . . . . . . . . . . . Socio—Economic Conditions . . . . . Economic Conditions . . . . . . . Selected Social Characteristics . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE 1970 SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF THE SPANISH- SPEAKING PEOPLE IN CHICAGO. . . . . Area I: The Near North. . . . . . . Area II: The Central West . . . . . Area III: The Far South . . . . . . The cubans. . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Page 62 63 65 67 71 81 89 95 100 101 101 1033 105 107 108 111 116 117 120 122 123 126 128 129 129 131 132 133 137 144 150 154 159 I‘ Chapter Page VIII. CHANGING HOUSING, ETHNIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA BETWEEN 1960 AND 1970 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 163 Black Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Housing Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 169 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Age of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Educational Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Income Level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YI75 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 179 BIBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 192 vi '1 LIST OF TABLES Number of Immigrants from Western HemiSphere countries 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 Mexican POpulation in Chicago . . . . . . . . Mexican Occupational Profile. . . . . . . . . Puerto Rican Occupational Profile . . . . . . cuban Occupational Profile. . . . . . . . . . Leading Ethnic Groups in 1960 Primary Study Area by Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . Leading Ethnic Groups in Area I by Primary CBHBUB TraCt8--196O o e o o e o o e e o o 0 Leading Ethnic Groups in Area II by Primary Census Tracts--l960 . . . . . . . . . . . . Leading Ethnic Groups in Area III by Primary Census Tracts--l960 . . . . . . . . . . . . Leading Ethnic Groups in Census Tracts of Secondary StUdY Area--19600 e e e e e o o 0 Leading Ethnic Groups in Secondary Census TraCts Of Area 1”].960. o o e o o e e o o 0 Leading Ethnic Groups in Secondary Census Tracts of Area II--1960 . . . . . . . . . . Leading Ethnic Groups in Secondary Census TraCts Of Area III--1960. O O O O O O O O 0 vii Page 28 48 50 53 56 102 104 105 107 112 113 115 115 4-6. 4-70 4-8. 4-90 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page European Immigration Into the United States . 18 Chicago: Orientation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Primary Study Area: 1960. . . . . . . . . . . 69 Secondary Study Area: 1960. . . . . . . . . . 70 Near North Study Area: 1960 . . . . . . . . . 76 Near North: Distribution of Study Area Census Tracts. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 77 Cuban Settlement Pattern: 1960 (by Community Area) 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 80 Central West Study Area: 1960 . . . . . . . . 82 Central West: Distribution of Study Area Census TraCts O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 87 Far South Study Area: 1960. . . . . . . . . . 90 Far South: Distribution of Study Area Census TraCtBO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 96 Socio-Economic Conditions of Study Area: 1960.121 Study Area Census Tracts: 1970. . . . . . . . 138 Near North Study Area: 1970 . . . . . . . . . 140 Areas of Spanish-Speaking Population Growth Between 1960’1970 o o e o e o o o e e e o e 142 viii Areas Vacated by Spanish-Speaking Between 1960-1970 . . Central West Study Area: Far South Study Area: Cuban Study Area: Black Settlement Pattern in Chicago: Comparative Socio-Economic Conditions of the Study Area: 1970. 1960-1970 ix 1970 . 1970. People 1970 Page 144 148 152 156 167 170 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION migration has played a very important role in the population dynamics of the United States. Traditionally, Europe provided most of the i-igrants during the earlier formative years of the country. At that time, millions of i-igrants representing several ethnic backgrounds made their contribution to the cultural and settlement pattern developing within the United States as they filled the frontiers and populated the cities. Some ethnic groups settled together forming readily identifiable rural com- munities or city neighborhoods. Often, vestiges of their culture remain visible in the landscape and geographers, historians and others have conducted many studies attempting to gain insight into the role played by each group in the tOtal development of the country. In recent decades, however, a new group of ini- 9rents, the Spanish-speaking people from Mexico, Puerto “90 and Cuba have Mcome numerically the most important "VCOmers to the country. While there has always been some 1 2 representation of Spanish-speaking people in the population of the United States from earliest times, the recent magni- tude of their influx is resulting in a significant change in their older settlement patterns. The earlier association of Mexicans with mining and agriculture in the west and South- *west is shifting to a stronger trend toward urban occupa- tions and settlement. Puerto Ricans who first migrated from their island to New York City have begun to show more interest in settling in the cities of the Middle west. Also, Cuban refugees arriving in large numbers have settled in several cities in the United States during the past few years. These latest newcomers are attracted to urban areas where they hope to find employment in the numerous indus- trial and commercial establishments located there. How- ever, as they are most often poorly equipped financially and lack educational and employment skills they find them- selves competing for the poorer paying jobs of the unskilled laborer. Their limited knowledge of the English language is a further handicap often standing in the way of promotion and setting them.apart from other workers. While they hope to fit into the general cosmopolitan atmosphere of the multiethnic pepulation of the large city, K3. in 3 their employment and financial condition result in their accepting inexpensive housing in the older decaying areas. .Additional newcomers tend to settle near those of similar cultural background, often with friends or relatives. This results in the formation of certain Spanish-speaking areas. Many Mexicans who moved to larger cities rather than become the outstanding minority group in the smaller towns of the Southwest, found they are still identifiable as a group.1 They often experience discrimination in gen- eral and as their nucleated settlements grow they find their needs are not met in proportion to their numbers. Puerto Ricans and cubans have experienced these problems also. However, since there are no attractive frontier regions remaining in the United States, this latest move- ‘ment of Spanish-speaking people to the large cities of the United States is not unusual.2 The sudden influx of Latin Americans into the united States, mostly during the past twenty-five years, has introduced a substantial and recognizable element to 1Leo Grebler, Joan Moore, Ralph Guzman et al., The Mexican American People (New York: The Free Press, 1970). p. 239. ZEmrys Jones, Human seam (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1965), p. 89. 4 the settlement pattern of several large metropolitan centers and the term.'Spanish-speaking community” has become a fre- quent phrase in contemporary literature. In New York City it refers to the Puerto Rican people in Spanish Harlem, in Loe Angeles and other towns in the Southwest to the Mexican 'barrios' and more recently, in Miami, Florida, to the Cuban exiles in Little Havana. They were all attracted to this country for the same basic reasons as their European predecessors: economic opportunity and escape from political and social oppression. While they face many of the same problems of the earlier immigrants, their problems are com- pounded due to the more highly complex system in which they must compete for living space, economic activity and social acceptance. While the “lines” separating most earlier European groups have become somewhat blurred with the passing gener- ations, the more recent Spanish-speaking people have not had time to be accepted and absorbed into the more general ”American" pattern. Much like the French Canadian and Black American, the Spanish-speaking residents usually remain as a readily identifiable minority group. As such, their set- tlement pattern is clearly distinguishable to geographers interested in determining the factors and relationships 5 most evident in influencing the location and morphology of that development . 3 Statement of the Problem Chicago, like most other large eastern and middle- western cities, experienced its greatest growth during the great European immugration period of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Each "new'wave' of immigrants ‘brought their own particular cultural traits with them and their settlement patterns often reflect some of those values. The newest group, the Spanish-speaking people, have also brought their cultural background to their new home and parts of it may be seen to varying degrees in the human landscape. Whereas many cities in the United States have Spanish-speaking people in their papulation mix, one na- tional group, Cuban, Mexican or Puerto Rican usually pre- dominates. Therefore, most studies which have been con- ducted to date have concerned only one national group. 3The term morphology is used here in its broader context as developed in Carl Sauer, “Morphology of Land- scape,“ University of California Publications in Geog- ra h , Vol. II, Mo. 2 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1925). 6 In Mew'York it is the Puerto Ricans, in Los Angeles the .Mexicans and in Miami the cubans. Chicago, however, is the largest city which has a significant Spanish-speaking population composed of not one, but three national groups: the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans. Therefore, Chicago offers a unique opportunity to study the development of a multinational Spanish-speaking community located within the same large .metropolitan center. Such research will be able to ana- lyze not only the Latin American community as a whole, but also to analyze the internal development and organization within the community itself to see what contributions each group makes. In carrying out this research, the following questions will be addressed: 1) What has been the role of Spanish-speaking immi- gration as part of the general immigration pattern into the united States? 2) now does Spanish-speaking immigration into Chicago compare with earlier patterns established by Europeans? 3) What are the spatial characteristics of the evolving pattern of Latin Americans within the city, includ- ing the internal structure of the settlement area, and what factors are most influential in its forma- £10“? 4) What is the visible nature of the presence of the Spanish-speaking peoples' cultural background? 7 5) After analyzing the factors havolved in the develop- ment of the Latin American community, and in view of future development of the city in total, what predictions can be made regarding its future? The answers to these questions should provide new insights into the factors influencing the settlement pattern of these newest immigrants as compared to previous groups. Also, for the first time, some understanding may be ob- tained of the internal spatial organization of the Spanish— speaking community as influenced by the presence of three different national groups each with its own characteris- tics, needs and desires. Methodological Approach Studies in population, settlement and the cultural impact of particular groups upon their areas of settlement have a substantial tradition in American geography. In the united States, Carl Sauer is probably most responsible for establishing the cultural—historical approach for the analysis of the evolution of the human landscape. He out- lined his basic methodology in “The Morphology of Land- scape' and demonstrated the important role culturally in- lPired values play in the perception and organization of a particular area. Several of his subsequent studies were based upon this concept. nines mt: mdi :znla 5;: 01 3°?“ Ilpi'zy fiysi till 8 George Carter further demonstrates the role cultural values play in the perception and development of the human habitat. An important theme of his boOk Man gnd the Land is the different ways in which various cultural groups have organised the environments encountered to meet their par- ticular needs and desires.5 Glenn Trewartha emphasized the need for a total analy- sis of population and proposed that studies in population geography be established as a basic subdivision within geog- raphy comparable to and complementing the subdivision of Physical Geography.6 Wilbur Zelinski outlined three essen- tial classifications for population studies:7 1) absolute numbers: 2) PhYsical, social and economic characteristics; 3) Population dynamics. Also, John Clarke stated that population geography '. . . is concerned with demonstrating how spatial variations in the 5George Carter, Man and theigand (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964). 6Glenn T. Trewartha, "The Case for Population Geog- raphy,” Annals of the Associgtion of American gaggraphers, Vol. 43, 1953, p. 71-97. 7 Wilbur Zelinski, Prologue to Population Geography (Inglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), p. 5. in; th glue am a Znéeec' £1351; the 31 the a man last, tin. aP911 '96:): are: ‘ 9 distribution, composition, migration and growth of popula- tions are related to spatial variations in the nature of places."8 These and other statements defining and demonstrat- ing the role of the study of human populations in geography place geography on an equal scholarly footing with popula- tion studies in sociology, demography and anthropology. Indeed, some studies conducted by researchers in these disciplines appear to borrow heavily from techniques in the study of spatial distribution and analysis.9 Since the spatial organization of populations and the effects particular groups have upon the developing human landscape have been well defined and presented in the past, there is sufficient justification for this disserta- tion. The basic principles of population geography will be applied in the analysis of a specific group, the Spanish- speaking people, and their relationships with one urban area, Chicago, Illinois. This study is basically empirical and data was 8John I. Clarke, Population G‘QEEQEEX (Mew'York: Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 2. 9Ronald Freedman, Recent Migration to Chicagg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950). 10 collected, analyzed and presented in the following way: 1) 2) 3) 4) gigtorical. As this is an analysis of an evolving pattern, some historical data was necessary in order to demonstrate the pattern of immigration into the United States and its relationship to the growth of Chicago and the groups settling there through time. The principal sources of informa- tion were the decennial United States Census of Population, the City of Chicago School Census, documents and reports of the Bureau of Immigra- tion and naturalization, and other information from various churches, historical libraries and museums, published and unpublished books, mono- graphs and articles, and reports from public and private agencies. Pielg Observation. Since this is such a dynamic population pattern, published information is often not current. Therefore, much data had to be gained by direct field observation. Also, land- use mapping had to be carried out and interviews with various individuals and representatives of the most influential institutions and organisa- tions involved in the establishment and evolution of the settlement pattern were conducted. Egrtographic Analysis. One of the chief tools used in the analysis of the changing spatial patterns was several maps which demonstrated and compared the areal growth and change of the Spanish-speaking community and its relationships with the rest of the city. Also, cartographic analysis was necessary to investigate the internal structure of the community itself relative to its three constituent groups. The most important maps were constructed for the years 1960 and 1970 when the greatest population growth took place. Comparative Analysis. While comparing the charac- teristics of the spatial organisation for the periods 1960 and 1970, two types of influential factors appeared. The first were those which helped shape the settlement pattern of the past and the second are those which are bringing about 11 the present change in the structure. Prom this, a feeling for the future location of the Spanish- speaking people in Chicago was arrived at. Research and analysis of this type are appropriate for this study. In view of the limited areal scope and the size of the population involved, it is necessary to under- stand the slightest spatial variation. Rglgtgd Literature and Studies There have been several studies published concerning Spanish-speaking in the United States, mostly involving the Mexicans in the Southwest. Historians have published much, tracing the original Spanish and‘Mexican inhabitants in that area even before it became a part of the United States. Sociologists became interested in the 1920's when the Mexican population was beginning to be looked upon as a distinctive social class especially in terms of family and income characteristics. Also, many reports and surveys were made at that time in an effort by labor groups to bring about some restrictions on immigration to protect the "native American" labor force. In more recent times, the growing importance of the population in the Southwest, together with their grow- ing self-awareness, has stimulated much interest. The results of the most complete general research, The nican :‘JIOI nth: are I 1:11 111 c ml} l“! e: the; Eve fies: (I) H F4 ~ :1 lo 0'” 19i 12 igggican AmericpgiPeOPle, was published in 1970.10 A modern geographical study concerning the historical-cultural impact of the Mexican people on the southwestern united states was published in 1971.11 How- ever, this analysis concentrated on past influences which ‘were still discernible today and did not investigate modern settlement patterns. Investigations involving Puerto Ricans are almost all centered on Mew York City. The most comprehensive analysis to date is probably that of Oscar Lewis in which he examined the general conditions of Puerto Ricans in their home island and in New York.12 There have also been several less scholarly books published in recent years describing the Puerto Ricans and their experiences in Spanish Harlem. 13 1°Grebler, o .cit. 11Richard L. Mostrand, “The Hispanic-American Border- land: Delimutation of an American Cultural Region," Annals of the Associption of American Gepgrapheps, Vol. 60, 1970. 12Oscar Lewis, La Vida (Mew York: Random House, 1966). 13Christopher Rand, The Puerto Ricans (Mew York: The Oxford University Press, 1958): Ellena Padillo, Up Prom Puerto Rico (Mew York: Columbia University Press, 1958). 13 Research into Cuban populations in the United States is less abundant. While their sudden arrival under extenuating circumstances during the past ten years has caused the writing of many newspaper articles, few compre- hensive research projects concerning this newest group of Latin Americans have‘been completed. However, one recent study was completed at Stanford University in 1968.14 In Chicago, the Mexican papulation has aroused some academic interest, especially at the University of Chicago. Several masters and doctoral theses in sociology and geography were produced.15 One recent geographical thesis completed in 1965, involved only Mexicans and cubans and, therefore, was not a comprehensive investigation into the larger Spanishospeaking community.16 14Richard Pagen, Richard Brody, Thomas O'Leary, Cubans in Exile: Digpffection and the Revolution (Stanford: The Stanford university Press, 1968). 15Robert C. Jones, “The Mexicans in Chicago,” a re- port to the Committee Commission of the Chicago Church Pederation, Chicago Congregational Union, 1931: Edward J. Bauer, “Delinquency Among Mexican Boys in South Chicago“ (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1938): Anita B. Jones, “Conditions Surrounding Mexicans in Chicago” (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1928). 16Marta Isabel Millman de Curutchet, "Location of the Mexican and cuban Population of Chicago? (unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Chicago, 1966). 14 Therefore, while there has been a considerable amount of research involving the settlement patterns of Blacks and other ethnic groups in our large cities, there have been no comprehensive geographical analyses of our second largest and most rapidly growing group, the Spanish- speaking people. Value of the Study Latin Americans are the fastest growing immigrant group entering the United States. Their recent tendency to congregate in urban locations further emphasizes their num- bers and influences upon the internal settlement pattern of cities. In Chicago, their numbers have doubled during the past decade, making them a minority group second only to the Black Americans. In these times of turbulence in the cities, we should know as much as possible about all the residents in order to anticipate and plan for the future. There have been few modern studies by geographers concerning the spatial aspects of the settlement pattern of Spanish- speaking Americans in large cities. The delimitation of the location and changes in the settlement pattern of this sunority group in Chicago over the past ten years together with an analysis and comparison of the factors influencing 15 that pattern hopefully will provide the basis of a better understanding of the specific desires and needs of this group. This dissertation will establish and analyze the settlement pattern--both the internal structure and the relationships with the total city--of the Spanish-speaking population of Chicago. It will be particularly unique in that the three largest national groups within the total Spanish-speaking population in the United States will be examined within the context of one city. In this paper, therefore, we will see not only how these people influence the development of the environment of the city as a whole, but also how they associate and relate spatially to one another. Having all the population groups necessary for this study within one environment, only the very real social and economic conditions which exist in the city will be present to influence all members of the Spanish- speaking population alike. Any differences in the settle- ment pattern will be a demonstration of the desires of the individual groups. CHAPTER II THE GENERAL IMMIGRATION PATTERN OF SPANISH- SPEARING PEOPLE INTO THE UNITED STATES Immigration of persons into the United States with the intention of establishing permanent residence has played a most important role in the growth of the popula- tion of this country. The greatest influx of imigrants took place during the latter half of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth centuries. During that period the United States was the recipient of the greatest mass ‘movement of people ever recorded. Between 1820, when record keeping of immigrants first began, and 1930, approximately thirty-eight million aliens were registered.1 Since that time, an additional seven million immigrants have been recorded. An examination of these records and the records of the United States Census Bureau discloses some very definite patterns both of intense periods of immigration 1All immigration data was taken from the public records of the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and.Maturalization unless otherwise stated. 16 17 (and.of the countries of origin of the immigrants. (Figure 2-1) Viewed historically, a strong correlation between these patterns and the develOpment of strong ”push-pull” factors in countries abroad and in the United States may ‘be made. The General Pattern of Immigration The Colonia1_Period to 1880 During this early period of development of the United States an estimated 13 to 15 million immigrants took up residence in the country. The vast majority came from the western and northern European countries. In the first United States census of 1790, 75 per cent of the white population was of British origin and “Germans“ accounted for an additional eight per cent.2 Smaller percentages from the Metherlands, France, Sweden and Spain were also recorded. Shortly thereafter, Spain and France became less important while Scandinavia grew as an important source region when large numbers of Norwegians entered the immigration stream. Oppressive social, political, economic 20ur Immigration: A Brief Account of Immigration to the United Stptes, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and.Maturalization Service, Revised 1967. p. 1. 18 sends soaodeHHmASamz e doaesswaaaH Ci O H mo smonsm .m.: "monsom .:aumcmoe0hsm Chopmdm e encapsom (\)/mndoeossm Choose: a chospsoz Thouo 81 o H I(\),noapmnwaaeH Hduoa European Immigration Into The United States Figure 2-1. wj rel :zzbute non: v 3:111? It! 8 Wing £21m 19 and religious conditions in those European countries con- tributed strong 'push' factors which encouraged out migra- tion: while stories of freedom, riches and opportunity, es- pecially in free or inexpensive land, in the United States ‘were strong “pull” attractions. These immigrants often came from Europe in groups having common national and cultural backgrounds. As they filled the Atlantic seaboard, moved across the mountains, spread into the river valleys and across the Great Plains, they organized the land according to their particular de- sires which reflected certain values of their culture. Traces of the Prench “long lot,” certain architectural styles in houses and barns and the organization of the farms of the “Pennsylvania Dutch” are but a few examples of the ethnic heritage left by early settlers. Also, certain types of occupations attracted par- ticular groups to settle in certain areas. The Scandi- navian lumbermen, the Welsh coalminers and Irish railroad construction workers established early communities, many of which remain today. While many of the early immigrants of this period were attracted by the possibility of owning their own farmland, others had less desire to establish themselves 20 on the frontier. Therefore, the developing towns and cities which also offered certain economic opportunities in commercial, industrial and service occupations, at- tracted other settlers. Since these newcomers also tended to remain together, ethnic neighborhoods displaying par- ticular cultural traits were forming in the growing cities. The Irish, German and Swedish neighborhoods were some of the first to form. In these neighborhoods much of the 'old country“ life style was preserved including religious preference, language, food preparation and so on. lot all immigrants arrived or remained in groups large enough to establish distinctive communities. Those who were white and willing to give up many of their ethnic values and learn to speak English ”without an accent" melded into British origin or developing “native American“ neighborhoods. Toward the end of this first period, a new group of city dwellers, escaped and later freed slaves, Icould not disappear into white neighborhoods. They found themselves rigidly segregated both as to housing and employ- ment and occupied the poorest position in each category. By 1880, a definite pattern of country of origin of the majority of immigrants and the corresponding devel- opment of ethnic communities and neighborhoods in the lite: a? [2 image “fit! :0 III to sh. flzin 'push E10; 11;; ill: ind ; 118a ind“ and 21 ‘United States was well established. The ngod 1880 to 1920 This second period marks the greatest influx of European immigrants to the United States and also demon- strates some important changes from the earlier pattern. Pirst, even though the Germans and Irish continued to arrive in large numbers, the "country of origin“ began to show a decided shift. With improved social, economic and political conditions in northern and western Europe during the latter part of the nineteenth century, the “push“ factor influencing emigration was reduced. The de- velopment of industrialization and the creation of a work- ing class helped to ease some of the social and economic ills of the time. However, all of Europe did not enter into the eco- nomic and social revolution with the same vigor. Italy and Eastern Europe continued to exist as poor feudalistic areas. With a backward agricultural technology and little industrial development, the growing numbers of the poor and landless peasants had nowhere to turn for improvement. Also, the non-responsiveness of certain governments and the constant threat of political turmoil made many to 1! fore Ital er tc t: 22 people fearful for the preservation of their rights as citizens. The difficulty in unifying Italy, the partition of Poland, the fragility of the "Shatter Belt“ and the imminent collapse of Czarist Russia encouraged many people to leave their homeland in search of a better life. There- fore, given these conditions, it is not unexpected that Italy and Eastern Europe should become important source re- gions for immigrants to the United States during this second period. Together with the "push“ factors growing in Europe were the 'pull' factors reaching their peak of development in the United States. While there was new little free land available, industrialization in the urban centers of the developing "Industrial Belt" in the northeastern Uhited States created what appeared to be a never-ending demand for labor. The low level of sophistication of most industries-- large or small--offered employment to great numbers of un- skilled, cheap workers: men, women and even children when- ever legal. Also, the attraction of workers was no longer left to chance. Active recruiting by companies and labor con- tractors in foreign countries became popular. Posters in rural villages throughout Europe urged the people to attend we: bee: we: 1. 1.: 30B is: ,1. ti: fa th in 23 meetings at which recruiters promised free passage, housing, jobs and other benefits if the people would agree to emi- grate. The sometimes unscrupulous methods of the recruiters and the poor treatment of the immigrants on arrival have ‘been well documented. However, they continued to come, overflowing into the cities and factories. Crowding into the older sections of cities, which were being abandoned by their earlier residents and which were fast becoming slums, they slept several in a room under unsanitary and unhealthy conditions living in the only housing they could afford. The lack of adequate public transportation which continued through the first half of this second period was one of the most important factors influencing residential location. Only the wealthy few could afford to commute via horse drawn carriages. The working class had to live within walking distance of their employment. Therefore, the first workman's residences were built adjacent to the factory areas. Then, as industry expanded, it moved into these residential areas creating an area of mixed landuse and bringing problems of dirt, smoke, noise and congestion which accelerated the deterioration of the early working class neighborhoods. cities alder lid e: me: 11;: :me :l-e 2 am had Vhlt lost 5m 24 The beginning of public transportation in some cities around the turn of the century allowed some of the older residents, who had saved a little money, to move out and establish new neighborhoods on the periphery of the inner city. Their leaving made room for the incoming imr migrants and the old tenements and substandard houses con- tinued to be pepulated by the poor unskilled workers at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The war years at the close of this second period nearly dried up European immigration and northern industry had to look elsewhere for its labor supply. Blacks and poor whites from the traditionally agricultural south filled most of the void. Also, although relatively small in hump bers, Mexicans who had been present in large numbers only in the southwestern United States began moving into some of the industrial areas of the Middle West giving up their traditional, often migratory agricultural ways and taking up permanent urban residence. Many of these "Mexicans“ had been born and raised in the united States, their an- cestors having lived in the Southwest since the time of Spanish occupation there. Others, however, were moving into the country fromeexico. The poor peasant was es- caping the constant “bandit“ warfare and poverty and those :5 30! it: I: the 3. ma State fire ten nin: We at 1 '0: in: 'On 25 of some means were escaping the revolution of 1910 and its aftermath. The poor illiterate Mexican competed for the same types of jobs and housing as his EurOpean coun- terpart. Other Latin Americans were present in the united States by 1920, however, their numbers were small and they came from a‘broad distribution of nationalities. There were some Cubans in Florida attracted by the cigar industry and some Puerto Ricans in east coast cities. However, the great influx of Puerto Ricans into New York City would not take place for another twenty-five years, and cuban immi- gration in large numbers would not occur until the 1960's. 1920 to the Present This third period is marked by far reaching policy decisions made in the United States which drastically al- tered the pattern of immigration. near the close of the nineteenth century, there were groups in the United States who feared that the number of “foreigners" was getting out of hand. They saw the cities becoming overcrowded and, moreover, feared competition for jabs from the constant inflow of new is-igrants who would work for less and less money. As a result, certain “acts” passed by the united 26 States government began to restrict some of the alien traffic. The most restrictive was the tChinese Exclusion- ary Act of 1882." This was followed in 1917 by the estab- lishment of the “Asiatic Barred Zone” which prohibited im- migration from most of Asia and the Pacific Islands.3 Other acts passed around the turn of the century were more dis- cretionary allowing the United States to “screen” appli- cants from all countries and to refuse entry of certain un- desirables on grounds of past criminal records, the carrying of certain diseases, insanity and the possibility of becom- ing public charges. Further pressure for general restrictions continued until World War 1 when the industrial boom and the downturn in the number of immigrants caused the question to be put aside. However, immediately after the war, immigration todk a sudden surge, heading back toward the high numbers of the predwar era. Therefore, in 1921, Congress passed the first general quota law which limited immigration to 350,000 persons annually. In 1924 the act was amended making the quota system permanent and establishing a ”National Origin“ provision which assigned a quota to individual 3Ibid., p. 8. 27 countries based upon their representation in the United States according to the 1920 census. A most important part of the 1924 act established certain aliens in a "non—quota” category.4 The largest group of “non-quota" immigrants under the act were “. . . those born in Western Hemisphere countries, their wives, husbands and children.“ The non-quota countries at that time*were Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guate- mala, Honduras, Micaragua, Panama, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. This pro- vision set the stage for the third major shift in the pat- tern of country of origin for a large number of immigrants. Mon-quota immigrants soon came to equal and surpass those from quota regions. In the beginning, Canada was the lead- ing non-quota country. However, in recent years Mexico has at times contributed greater numbers. (Table 2-1) Por the most part, the number of Mexicans residing in the United States has continued to increase since 1920. During the “Great Depression“ of the 1930's, however, there 4United States Immigration Laws: General Informa- tion, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Maturali- sation Service, Revised, 1967, p. 9. 28 TABLE 2-1 lumber of Immigrants from.western Hemisphere Countries, 1955-1970“ Year Mexican Canadianb All Other Total 1955 50,772 23,091 22,468 96,331 1956 65,047 29,533 31,683 126,623 1957 49,154 33,203 33,587 115,944 1958 26,712 30,055 35,060 91,827 1959 23,061 23,082 28,389 74,532 1960 32,684 30,990 34,449 98,123 1961 41,632 32,038 45,188 118,858 1962 55,291 30,377 53,150 138,818 1963 55,253 36,003 61,368 152,624 1964 32,967 38,074 73,034 144,075 1965 37,969 38,327 81,395 157,691 1966 45,163 28,358 71,390 144,911 1967 42,371 23,442 90,842 156,655 1968 43,563 27,662 178,811 250,036 1969 44,623 18,582 101,122 164,327 1970 44,469 13,804 92,814 151,087 ‘By country or region of birth bIncluding Mewfoundland Source 3 Annual Reports of the 0.8. Immigration and naturalization Service 29 was actually some overall loss of Mexican residents. At that time, the United States increased its surveillance of immigrants and more rigidly enforced provisions in the law which excluded those thought likely to become public charges. Therefore, Mexican immigration drOpped during the ten year period to an average of 3,000 annually. Many of these were leaving Mexico due to the nationalization and new’money policies being instituted by the Mexican govern- ment at that time. Of greater significance is the fact that nearly five times as many Mexicans were returning home as were leaving. Unemployment hit the unskilled, poorly edu— cated foreigner the hardest. Hative white Americans now were competing for jobs unwanted earlier and they were often shown preference over the Mexicans. world war 11, however, reversed this trend. With movement from Europe once again reduced, non-quota immigra- tion accounted for more than half the United States total. Of these, nearly 50 per cent were from Mexico. Since 1953, the western Hemisphere countries have accounted for approxi- mately 60 per cent of the total immigration and Mexico and Canada have continued to share the lead. Another important Latin American group which has contributed substantially to the population of several 30 cities in the United States is the Puerto Ricans. Unlike the Mexicans, the Puerto Ricans have not had a very lengthy history of residence in the United States. During World Mar 11, however, they were recognized as a potential labor source. Since Puerto Rico enjoys a special political relationship with the United States, many of the immigration laws do not affect them and they can enter the country with comparative ease. The 1950's saw the greatest influx of Puerto Ricans, especially to the Eastern cities. Soon, how- ever, their ever-increasing numbers caused strong competi- tion for housing and jobs and they began moving into the interior. During the 1960's, Puerto Ricans have become significant minorities in a number of Middle western cities. Unfortunately, since Puerto Ricans are not true im- migrants, their movement to and from the United States is not recorded by the Immigration Department. However, they have become of such numerically importance that the U.S. Census Bureau started enumerating them as a separate group in some cities. ‘They appeared in the Chicago census for the first time in 1960. Increased industrialization and land re—distribution has been taking place in Puerto Rico to reduce the economic ”push“ factor somewhat and has to a certain degree even 31 enticed some people to return to the island. However, the 'burgeoning population and continued poor condition in many parts of the island continue to influence some young people to try their luck in the United States. A third Latin American group, the Cubans, have be- come important in some cities during the past decade. They too have entered the United States under less than ordinary conditions. As a result of the Castro Revolution many Cubans have asked for and received asylum in the united States under special ”refugee" provisions to our immigra- tion laws. After a two year "parole“ period these people may apply for permanent residence. The Cuban refugees entered mostly by way of Miami. At first they desired to remain in the Miami area as they ‘believed their stay in the united States would be a temper- ary one. However, as their numbers increased to the point of causing over-congestion in the south Plorida region and when the Bay of Pigs disaster convinced most of the refugees that their stay was going to be much longer, the Cubans, wuth assistance from.United States agencies, established an or- ganization to re-settle the refugees in several regions of the country. The regional offices help locate housing and jobs and offer other assistance to make re-location as smooth 32 as possible. At the same time they try not to create any :more'burden on the cities accepting the refugees than neces- sary. In this fashion, the Cubans have spread out from their Miami nucleus and have also become significant munorities in several United States cities. Sum-IE! The pattern of immigration into the United States has been influenced by a series of “push-pull” factors which have develOped abroad and in this country. This has re- sulted in a change in the relative importance of various areas of the world as “source regions" of aliens and has established the larger urban cities as the leading recipi- ents of most newcomers. Each new group is faced with several similar prob- lems. They must learn to “fit in“ in the restricted land space of the new urban location and must compete with the established residents for housing, services and employment. At first, some groups tried to preserve as much of their cultural heritage as possible and they banded together in ethnic neighborhoods. Several generations passed before many of these people considered themselves Americans first and German, Polish or Irish second. 33 Recently, a new group, the Spanish-speaking people from Latin America have entered this country in large num- bers. While they do not numerically match the numbers of Europeans who entered before the immigration restrictions were enacted, they do compose the largest percentage of all newcomers in the past decade. How are they reacting when they find themselves as minority groups in large cities? Are they facing the same problems and following the same patterns of settlement and employment of previous European groups? The remainder of this study will be an analysis of the settlement pattern of the Mexicans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans, as a whole and separately, in Chicago in an effort to gain insight into these questions. CHAPTER III THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMMIGRANT POPULATION OF CHICAGO Chicago began its develOpment as an important focal point for the modern Middle west in the mid-nineteenth cen- tury. Its location provided easy access to the east coast region via the Great Lakes system or overland through Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. To the west lay the Mississippi River and the lands of the Great Plains await- ing settlement. The area had first attracted the French and later the British and finally the Americans. Each group had come to know'what the Indians had known for some time, that the Chicago River region was the natural pivotal point of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi basin. Early Settlement Patterns in Chicago 1800-1880 At the turn of the nineteenth century, the newly founded united States government succeeded in removing 34 35 French and British interests in the area of the upper Mississippi River. Then a treaty with the local Indians ‘was negotiated which ceded six square miles at the mouth of the Chicago River to the government. In 1803, to help guarantee United States possession of the "frontier“ from foreign interests and to provide protection from the In- dians for future settlers, Fort Dearborn was built near the ‘mouth of the Chicago River. The following few years saw only limited settlement in the area. Some fur trappers, Indian traders and a few farmers were willing to leave the more civilized eastern United States for the western frontier. The continuing Indian threat together with the possibility that the United States would not be able to protect her ”western territory‘ from British interest, discouraged rapid, dense settlement in the region. However, after the War of 1812 and especially with the successful ending of the Blackhawk Indian War in 1832, settlers began arriving in substantial numbers claiming farmland and beginning to develop some commercial activity near the mouth of the river. In 1833, with a pepulation of 350 and an area of less than one square mile, Chicago was chartered as a town. By 1837, the population had increased to 4,170 and a new charter 36 established Chicago as a city. Most of the newcomers to early Chicago were of English origin. However, in 1836, a number of German and Irish laborers were brought in to start work on the pro- posed Illinois and Michigan Canal. This canal, which utilized in part the South Branch of the Chicago River (Figure 3-1), caused much land speculation as it was seen as the most important transportation link with the Missis- sippi River. This would allow agricultural products from the farming area southwest of Chicago to flow toward the city for processing and trade instead of going down the Mississippi or directly overland to the East. Therefore, grain elevators were added to the growing pattern of lum- ber yards, brick yards and other manufacturing establish— ments along the banks of the South Branch of the Chicago River nearest the city. The city grew rapidly in population and area and continuing development in trade, commerce and manufactur- ing attracted settlers in ever increasing numbers. Fol- lowing the national immigration pattern of the time, large numbers of Swedes, Norwegians and Danes joined the growing numbers of Germans and Irish. The early English and “na— tive'born American' population was rapidly becoming 37 . CHICAGO NORTH BRANCH \‘_. ‘. CHICAGO RIVER ~ \ h- a -1 ‘ T . a p ' \ LAKE '\ ‘s- -o‘ ‘, MICHIGAN HUMBOLDT ‘* ‘ ARK \\ “ COLUMBUS . ‘ PARK --...---‘s‘ I O L l3 2; § a ”I Bi .-- -poqc-Les- —-- ""' 'PAFC" ' O ‘1 fll . : I b..“---- ..-‘ ,/ s \ ,7/ILLINOIS ANQ 1.2m m ‘AL m_ \: '--- c--- I New _-._. City : :0-.. r'r' UNIV.OF CHICAGO I I I I I I CTA (ELECTRIC ---‘ RAILROAD ‘ - .- t .............. CENTRAL BUSINESS Knxng. DISTRICT (LOOP) THTKCI (2 (/l O 1 2 Kenilworth , miles I 8 H Figure 3-1. Chicago: Orientation dilute! fareiq tint. tion a «con; Ind tt grant 355m is“ liti. mt Cent 38 diluted. By 1850, 54 per cent of the city's population was foreign born. The Germans and Irish were numerically most impor- tant. Two important “push" factors in Europe, the Revolu- tion of 1848 and the continued political and social unrest accompanying the “welding' together of the German State, and the Irish “potato famine,“ added emphasis to the emi~ grant flow of those two groups. By 1870, the Germans were the largest foreign born group in the city. They worked in the construction trades, the growing meat packing industry, the newly developing and expanding railroad shops and in a variety of processing and manufacturing industries which were developing along both branches of the Chicago River. Also, many Germans estab- lished “truck gardens“ at the edge of town to supply the growing demand for fresh fruit, vegetables and milk. The Irish men also took jobs in the city's growing industries while many of their women took domestic positions as well. Also, the Irish quickly learned the value of po- litical organization and soon they came to hold a dispro- portionate number of the city‘s "civil service" jobs. During the 1830's and 1840's settlement had con- centrated along the Chicago River, near the confluence of 39 its lorth Branch and South Branch and near the Lake Michigan shore. The poorer, foreign population generally crowded near the rivers close to the industrial development there. At that time, the city was small and the men and women could walk to their jobs in the factories along the river or into the commercial and wealthier residential areas 'where much new construction work was taking place. Also, the women employed as domestics could “commute" on foot to their places of employment. As the city’s population continued to grow, the Irish, Germans and Norwegians were showing a tendency to settle in separate neighborhoods. Immigration increased sharply during the 1850's and 1860's and these newcomers added strength to the old ethnic character of the neighbor- hoods. This was demonstrated in the growing number of German, Irish, Norwegian and Swedish political, social and athletic clubs, the neighborhood celebrations of ethnic holidays and the publication of several foreign language newspapers. So strong and important had the ethnic neigh- borhood structure become that the “local" language was the language of instruction in neighborhood schools with English taught as a second language. The next important event which strengthened hacag: rulro Ind Hi thu city 1 trial Elpec roads 0f Ii fIci] Ilang ldde: lent Just and 4o Chicago's central place position was the coming of the railroads beginning in the 1850's. Just as the Illinois and Michigan Canal had encouraged develOpment toward the southwest of the city, the railroads soon converged on the city like the spokes of a great wheel encouraging indus- trial and residential development to the north, west and especially to the south along the lake shore. The rail- roads provided thousands of new jobs in the construction of miles of tracks and railroad yards and maintenance facilities. Also, industry was attracted to various points along the right of way in and near the city. Further, the added prosperity in the city, now that it was the undisputed focal point of the Middle West, attracted additional invest- ment in a variety of trade and commercial establishments. Just as water had been a key locational factor for industry and settlement in the past, the railroads became the major locational influence after 1850. While the new railroads opened some areas outside the mid-Chicago location for the develogment of industry and settlement areas for new populations, the transportation they provided was mostly for freight. Commuter transporta- tion into the city was slower to organize and for many years was used only by the wealthier business class. The Iveraq ing d1 zinuec or so with 30139 their m1] 91m in; “I! 5'15; are; h” to the fit Vii 0f 41 average factory worker still relied upon living within walk- ing distance of his job. Therefore, the older pattern con- tinued to exist. The workers lived in cheap frame cottages or poor tenements close to, and becoming more mixed in with, the expanding manufacturing establishments. The dirt, noise, smoke and congestion, together with the original cheap construction of most of the buildings, brought about their deterioration in less than fifty years. Even in the small “satellite“ communities rising along the railroads the pattern was much the same. The Chicago fire of 1871 did little to improve hous- ing conditions in general. While the fire did clear out many of the old frame houses in one area of the city which were replaced by better quality structures, the poor people displaced by the fire crowded into the adjacent unaffected areas. There they crowded into existing housing or con- structed cheap wooden shacks.1 Most wanted to stay as close to "downtown” as possible so as to gain employment during the rebuilding period and regain their old jobs once the fire area was reconstructed. 1Areas outside the fire zone did not have to comply with the new stricter building code of the burned portion of the city. Chm of th ing t I it: Euro; “I111 Me and infl In :00! 5‘11): 5&8] “it tic; 42 Therefore, at the close of the 1870's the general growth and develOpment pattern of the city closely followed that which had been established in the 1830's. After 1880 several important changes would take place. 1880-1920 Following the pattern of national immigration, Chicago's greatest influx of newcomers began in the decade of the 1880's and continued until World War I. Also, follow- ing the national trend, Chicago's immigrants began to show a stronger representation from the southern and eastern Buropean countries, especially Italy and Poland. As un- skilled "foreigners,' their economic and social position relegated them to housing which was now in slum condition and was being vacated by some of the earlier groups. The influx during this ”boom” papulation period was such that all available housing units were quickly filled. To make room for the growing population, many older buildings were subdivided into several smaller apartments. In this fashion, the slum constantly encroached upon adjoining communities engulfing those that were in a rundown condi- tion and where the owners felt there was more profit to be made in subdividing than there was in improvement and :estI 3N8 IS t "and fort felt 43 restoration. Therefore, Polish, Italian, Lithuanian, Russian Jews and Greek communities were forming in much the same way as the earlier German, Irish and Norwegian. Not all of the older ethnic neighborhoods were dis- banded, however. Some maintained their position and were fortified by new Irish and German immigrants. Those who felt compelled to leave the old neighborhoods moved out to the edge of town and settled around the newly developing industrial areas springing up along the rights of way of the constantly growing railroad net. Some of the families who had managed to save a little money, moved into more substantial brick and stone housing, often single family or two and three flat dwellings. The develOpment of "rapid” transit lines to the west and north allowed residential com- munities to be constructed facing Garfield, Douglas and Humboldt Parks some three and one half miles from the Central Business District. In this way the population was being re- structured socially and spatially. A middle class was form- ing between the wealthy and the very poor. This new class moved out of the inner city slums into newer working class suburbs located on the periphery of the city. The old ten- ement district was left to the poor and the Gold Coast to the '13 ten :iv 13: nd lat M the 44 the wealthy. 2 By the close of the second period, much of Chicago was residentially mature. Little more was added to the territorial jurisdiction of the city by annexation as sur- rounding communities began to stabilize and fight to main- tain their independence. Construction of housing units within the city was leveling off and most construction ac- tivity involved the converting of older, larger structures into smaller apartment units or in the tearing down of slums and building public housing units. After 1920, most of the mature communities experienced less than five per cent of new private housing units per decade, many as little as two per cent.3 Another important event took place at the close of the period: World War I. The war brought on a great demand for labor and at the same time curtailed immigration from BurOpe. Therefore, industry went into the rural areas of 2The Gold Coast is an area of expensive apartments and condominiums just north of the Chicago River facing Lake Michigan. This has been an exclusive residential area from.early times in Chicago‘s development and has maintained its position up to the present. 3Evelyn M. Kitagawa and Karl E. Taeuber (eds.), Local CommenityjArea Fact Book: Chicago Metropolitan Argg, 1960 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963). 45 the South and Southwest to recruit labor much as they had done in Europe during the previous century. This resulted in adding two new dimensions to the population structure of the city: the Blacks and to a lesser extent, the Mexicans. Blacks had been present in the city in small num- bers from.its earliest time. They‘became somewhat more numerous after the Civil War when some returned to the city fromICanada where they had fled along the Underground Rail- way, and others had drifted north after being “freed" in the South. Nevertheless, they comprised only one per cent of the city's population in 1870. They continued to increase in number slowly until World War I when they suddenly were brought to the city in great numbers. From the beginning, they experienced discrimination and were only allowed to settle in certain very poor parts of the city's slums. Dis- crimination spread into the social and economic sphere as well. They were usually shunned by white society and were the victims of "sharp“ practices and unemployment during economic recessions. Therefore, their settlement pattern was artificially restricted and its spatial development cannot be compared with that of the other ethnic groups who were free to choose their residential areas as their economic position improved. 46 World War I also introduced Mexicans into the city's population. While Mexicans were first mentioned in 1886, their numbers were too small to authenticate a settlement pattern. However, the industrial boom created by the war drew them into the area. Many came from the southwestern part of the United States where they had been employed for several generations on the large farms and vineyards of the 'anglos,‘ in railroad construction and in mining. Others, however, arrived more directly from.Mexico where the revolution of 1910 and its aftermath frightened many Mexicans into fleeing their homeland. At the end of the war, there were considerable numbers of Mexicans in the city though by no means did they match the population of the other ethnic groups. However, they were the fore- runners of a much larger movement of Spanish-speaking people into the city during the last period under consid- eration: 1920 to 1970. 1920 to 1970 As a result of the increase in Mexican population during and after World War I, the United States Census Bureau enumerated them for the first time in Chicago as a special group in 1920. At that time they occupied three general locations which appeared to relate to their economic roles. If t tan; nil 3th: Tue fax: 0f It) La} 47 One group, often single men, lived in several rail- road camps about the city. These Mexicans had replaced some of the Irish 'gandy dancers“: the construction and main- tenance labor force of the railroads. Many lived in old railroad cars which had been converted into dormitories. Others settled in some of the older housing which had been built adjacent to some of the original railroad yards. In this way, they could walk to the yard and than ride out to the work site on the crew train. A second group became involved in the heavy steel industry that had develOped on the far southside of Chicago. There they settled in Kennilworth, one of the oldest multi- family residential areas in West Pullman. The settlement of Mexicans in southern Chicago is associated with other Mexicans who had been attracted to the various heavy indus- try towns which had developed along the south shore of Lake Michigan extending into Indiana.‘ A third general area of settlement was in the old ”Hull House“ region, one of Chicago's oldest and worst slums. Here the Mexicans “shared" the neighborhood with a 4Julian Samora and Richard A. Lamanna, Mexican Americans in a Midwest MetrOpolis: A Study of East Chicago (Berkeley: University of California, 1967). 48 varied group of poor peOple. From this central location, the Mexicans could walk or use public transportation to reach the central business district or a multitude of nearby manufacturing establishments. The Mexicansgin Chicago Since 1920, the Mexicans have remained as one of the most rapidly growing immigrant groups in the city. An analysis of Table 3-1 indicates a premature spurt in the TABLE 3-1 Mexican Population in Chicago Year Mexican Population 1920 1,265 1930 20,260. 1940 7,132 1950 9,080 1960 44,686 1965 54,397 (est) 1970 82,057 “enlarged figure partly due to the census definition of “Mexican“ in 1930. Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970. Mexican population during the 1920's. However, during the depression of the 1930's, the city lost part of its Mexican population when discrimination in hiring practices and their 49 limited job skills caused high unemployment rates among them. Therefore, following the national trend, many left the city and returned to Mexico rather than try to compete with the “white Americans” who were now willing to take jobs they had considered fit only for Negroes and “for- eigners.“ The onset of World War 11 created a labor shortage similar to that of the World.War I period and Mexicans be- gan to return to the city in significant numbers. They con- tinued to leave Mexico after the war when a recession oc- curred there which caused a devaluation of the Mexican cur- rency and a problem of unemployment. This exodus is re- flected in the numbers of Mexicans coming to Chicago in the post war years. By 1960, Chicago ranked fourth among U.S. cities in Mexican population behind Los Angeles, San Antonio and El Paso and was the leading city outside the Southwest. This marks a considerable change from 1950 when Chicago ranked twelfth. There have been some changes in the profile of the Mexican immigrants in recent years. One outstanding change has‘been in the increase in the numbers of women and chil- dren within the total. This would indicate a more stable family oriented population, probably planning on estnblishing 50 permanent residence if possible. Another trend toward stability is seen in the increase in the numbers of Mexi- can males who are becoming naturalized citizens. unfortunately, the majority of Mexican immigrants remain undereducated and continue to have a disproportion- ate number of their total in the unskilled, laboring em- ployment classification. (Table 3-2) TABLE 3-2 Mexican Occupational Profile--l960 Occupation Per Cent Professional, technical 5 kindred workers 1.3 Farmers and farm managers 1.2 Managers, officials 5 proprietors 0.7 Clerical 5 kindred workers 1.6 Sales workers 0.6 Craftsmen, foremen & kindred workers 3.5 Operatives 5 kindred workers 2.1 Private household workers 7.9 service workers except private household 1.2 Farm laborers and foremen 6.1 Laborers except farm and mine 20.8 Not reporting (includes women 5 children) 52.4 Source: Annual Reports of the U.S. Immigration and Natural- ization Service 51 Therefore, the Mexicans in Chicago find themselves on the lower rungs of the economic ladder and experience difficulty in competing for jobs and in the market place. Also, even those who have some education or vocational skills may have a poor command of the English language which places a burden on their abilities to function within the general Chicago area. The Puerto Ricans in Chicago The Puerto Ricans present a different picture of immigration. They do not have as lengthy a tradition of residence in the United States or the city of Chicago as the Mexicans. Their early association with the United States was centered on the east coast, mainly in New York and New'Jersey, and to a lesser extent in Florida. During the post World War II era, when the greatest influx of Puerto Ricans took place, they began to spread inland. Up to 1960, most of the Puerto Ricans entering Chicago came by way of New York City. Some of them had spent enough time there to learn something of the ways of living in a large metropolitan area. However, after 1960, direct air service between Chicago and San Juan began to introduce a completely uninitiated Puerto Rican to the city. The continued migration into the city from the east and the 52 steady increase in Puerto Ricans coming directly from the Caribbean has resulted in a pepulation growth during the past twenty years which has brought their numbers up to equal the Mexicans. In 1960, the Census Bureau enum- erated Puerto Ricans in the city as a separate classifica- tion for the first time. The profile of the Puerto Rican “immigrant“ bears many shmilarities and some important differences to that of the Mexican. He is undereducated, even slightly more so than the Mexican, and underskilled. He did not develop a tradition with agriculture or construction in the United States as the Mexicans did on the large farms and ranches of the Southwest and with the railroads in that area. He also does not have the tradition of working in heavy in- dustry and mining. His limited past experiences and pres- ent associations with the United States have been mostly with the lighter manufacturing and service industries in an urban setting. Therefore, although basically un- skilled, the Puerto Rican is not a competitor with the Mexican in all types of unskilled labor. (Table 3-3) The Puerto Rican has been more associated with the commercial center of the city than the Mexican. Probably because of their earlier association with New‘YOrk City, 53 TABLE 3-3 Puerto Rican Occupational Profile--1960 Occupation Per Cent Professional, technical a kindred workers 1.6 Farmers and farm managers 0.0 Managers, officials e proprietors 1.2 Clerical 5 kindred workers 5.2 Sales workers 1.8 Craftsmen, foremen a kindred workers 9.0 Operatives a kindred workers 45.7 Private household workers 0.0 Service workers except private household 11.7 Farm laborers e foremen 0.5 Laborers except farm a mine 13.7 Not reporting 9.0 Source: Annual Reports of the U.S. Immigration and Naturali- zation Service 54 many Puerto Ricans are employed in the restaurant business. Starting as busboys, sweepers and kitchen help, some become waiters with much improved earning power. Also, many are employed in the business section as messenger and delivery men and in the "stock rooms“ and packaging areas of many stores. Others have moved into janitorial work and in gen- eral they have accepted any of the unskilled, low paying jobs in the business district. Often the most important factor of improving their position, e.g., from busboy to waiter, is mastering the English language. Even those who received some education on the island remain job handicapped until they improve their English skills. The Cuban Movement to Chicago The Cuban movement to Chicago bears little resem- blance to that of the other two Spanish-speaking groups. First, there were very few Cubans in the city of Chicago prior to 1959. The United States Census Bureau in- cluded them in the general category ”West Indies“ in 1960. Those few'who were in Chicago were associated mostly with the tobacco industry, or were business agents representing firms doing business in the Caribbean. These few were easily absorbed into the city's general population pattern. 55 However, when it was seen necessary to disperse the overwhelming number of refugees who had flooded into the Miami area, an agency was established in Chicago to aid in relocating and resettling Cubans. Since that time, approxi- mately 6,000 Cubans have settled in Illinois, the majority choosing Chicago. The profile of the Cuban immigrant differs from that of the Mexican or Puerto Rican. The Cuban is usually better educated and has superior employment skills than his Mexican or Puerto Rican counterpart. Table 3-4 demonstrates the consistently higher percentages of cubans within the professional, skilled and white collar classifications. This profile also indicates the stronger urban background of most of the cuban immigrants. Therefore, it is not un- expected that the Cubans, like the Puerto Ricans have been attracted to the cities and have never seen themselves as agricultural laborers or miners or heavy construction workers like the Mexicans. However, there are still some significant problems facing cubans who arrive in Chicago which influence their new life styles and perhaps their settlement pattern. While many of the newcomers had been successful business and professional people in Cuba, they arrived in 56 TABLE 3-4 Cuban Occupational Profile--l960 Occupation Per Cent Professional, technical a kindred workers 10.5 Farmers and farm managers 0.2 Managers, officials & proprietors 4.3 Clerical and kindred workers 7.7 Sales workers 2.3 Craftsmen, foremen & kindred workers 3.2 Operatives a kindred workers 6.0 Private household workers 1.5 Service workers except private household 2.5 Farm.laborers s foremen 0.2 Laborers except farm a mine 0.7 Not reporting (includes women 5 children) 60.2 Source: Annual Reports of the U.S. Immigration and Naturali- zation Service. 57 the united States with little or no money or personal prop- erty. Therefore, they could not purchase new business es- tablishments or homes commensurate with their potential. Also, certain professional, e.g., physicians and lawyers, had to go through a retraining period before they could be licensed to practice. Many accepted lesser positions rather than submit to extensive retraining and testing. Also, there is still the problem of language. Many of the well educated Cubans had little or no command of English and while they could read and write Spanish much better than the Mexican or Puerto Rican, they were still handicapped in gaining employment in Chicago. There has been a change in the Cuban profile in recent years. The first refugees to flee Cuba were the professional and white collar people who had seen immedi- ately that their life would be effected by the new govern- ment which had taken over the island. More recently, how- ever, the refugee is more apt to be of the working class. While his education and work experience may still be su- perior to the other Spanish-speaking immigrants, he does not have the broad base of education, training and profes- sional experience of the earlier refugees. Therefore, while the cuban's credentials appear 58 superior, he still has a certain mobility problem when he first arrives in the city. He must rely upon social and economic help from friends and city agencies to help get him established. Without money and having to accept low paying employment, at least in the beginning, only inex- pensive housing near public transportation is acceptable. Also, and perhaps even more so due to the traumatic events surrounding their leaving Cuba, they demonstrate a desire to be close to friends and others of similar background and language. Many Cubans, however, appear to be quite resource- ful and adapt quickly. Many become managers, if not owners, of small businesses or branches of chain store organiza- tions. Physicians became laboratory technicians or medical researchers and lawyers joined real estate and insurance firms. Many have been found to be excellent factory work- ers and some have become supervisors, especially over other Spanish-speaking employees. Those who make an improvement in their economic position become more mobile and tend not to be as limited in their residential locations. Many move on to job opportunities in nearby suburbs after only a brief stay in Chicago. This makes an exact analysis of their lo- cations difficult and any discussion of their settlement S9 pattern must be more generalized. Therefore, while their background profile gives most Cubans a feeling of superiority over the other Latin American emigrees to the point where he does not consider himself "one of them” and has little desire to associate or identify with them, circumstances place them in a simi- lar position with the other Spanish-speaking peeple in that they have to live where they can afford to and accept some of the lower paying jobs, at least in the beginning. Summar The ethnic growth and development of Chicago fol- lows rather closely the overall immigration pattern into the united States set during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Further, there has been a conscious effort by the newcomers to band together in ethnic neighborhoods pre- serving their old cultural values as much as possible in the midst of a strange land. There is also a certain “pecking order” in the settlement pattern. The first im- migrants settled near the center of the city in areas of mixed landuse and in dwellings of questionable quality. They and their descendants started in menial jdbs but as they gained skills and organized themselves they moved into more substantial areas developing new and larger 60 neighborhoods. This develOpment was fortified by a con- tinuous flow of immigrants many of whom were friends and relatives of earlier settlers. Then, when a new and dif- ferent group came upon the scene they found themselves at the bottom.of the socio-economic ladder. They could only compete for the unskilled jobs and, therefore, could only afford the poorest of housing. Also, they were usually discriminated against by the established residents and therefore they formed new ethnic groupings in the old de- caying residential areas recently vacated. This pattern was repeated through all the incoming European groups and the Blacks coming in from the South except that Blacks did not gain mObility in housing and occupations as rapidly as the Europeans did. The latest immigrant group, the Spanish-speaking people are known to have several things in their background similar to the other Chicago immigrants. They have a cer- tain problem with the English language and have been dis- criminated against as “outsiders.“ Many lack educational and employment skills and are employed mostly in unskilled and usually low paying jobs. They also have certain cul- tural institutions in common, the two most important of which are language and religion. Other customs and folk 61 ways differ, with the Mexicans visibly preserving and demon- strating more than the others. The question of specific settlement pattern will be addressed in the following chapters to seek answers to three questions. First, what is the nature of the develop- ing settlement pattern and how does it compare with that of previous immigrant groups? Second, what factors appear to exert the greatest influence on the residential location of the Spanish-speaking population? Third, what is the nature of the relationship between Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans within the Latin American residential area? CHAPTER IV THE 1960 SETTLEMENT PATTERN 0? SPANISH- SPEAKING PEOPLE IN CHICAGO In 1960, the combined population of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans in the city was estimated at ap- proximately 82,000 which was 2.3 per cent of the city's total pepulation. Of these, 44,686 were Mexicans and 32,371 were Puerto Ricans.1 While the cubans were too few to be classified separately by the Census Bureau, their numbers were estimated at 5,000. While these numbers ap- pear relatively small, it must be remembered that the Spanish-speaking people are nevertheless the fastest grow- ing ethnic group in the city and their population could double and redouble during the next few decades. Since their numbers are at present small, the location of this group is especially important. If they are well distributed 1All pepulation figures in this chapter are taken from the United States Census of Papulation, 1960, unless stated otherwise. 62 63 throughout the city, they will tend to disappear into the majority papulation. If, however, they have followed the pattern of earlier EurOpean immigrants, they will have formed neighborhood enclaves in which they will be in the majority, or at least form a significant minority, so that their influence upon the development and organization of the neighborhood will be readily apparent. Therefore, it is essential that the population be located and mapped as accurately as possible so as to demonstrate the amount of nucleation present. Also, since there are three major groups within the population, the internal structure of the “Spanish-speaking community" will have to be analyzed closely to determine the spatial relationships of each group involved.2 The MappinggProcedure Since the population to be mapped represented less than 3 per cent of the city's total, it was important to use the smallest practicable unit for which data had been 2The term ”Spanish-speaking community“ is used in this study for analytical purposes and refers to those areas of the city in which the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans show settlement densities above the average for the city as a whole. Only rarely do they constitute an ethnic majority in these areas. 64 gathered. In the cases of the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, individual census tract data was used. These tract areas were further reduced when field investigation revealed that there were areas within them which, due to non-residential land use or to the deve10pment of very expensive housing, contained no Spanish-speaking papulation. In the case of the Cubans, their population was so small in 1960 that only a very general distributional pat- tern could be obtained. Therefore, the Cuban settlement pattern was de-limited on the 1960 map according to the much larger unit, the Community Area, which gives an exag- gerated presentation of their numbers when compared to the more exact census tracts of the other two groups. However, its location in relation to the patterns of the other two groups is important and must be examined as best we can as part of the total Spanish-speaking community. The major problem which arose was in representing the numerical values so that some indication of the density of the Latin American pepulation relative to the remaining population could be taken into consideration. Since the Latin American population is so small that it rarely con- stitutes a majority in most of the census tracts, the ques- tion of which tracts to include in the study area posed a 9:0in up w‘ speak great sis. ing i the ' =190!! PIES The Cid: P09 we 0.5 5h< \o in he C1 01 65 problem. Obviously, it was most desirable to arrive at a map which would include the greatest numbers of Spanish- speaking people in the fewest census tracts so that the greatest areal concentration would appear for further analy- sis. To this end, two approaches were tested, one express- ing the Mexican and Puerto Rican population relative to the total population of each tract and the other based upon the absolute numbers of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans present in the tracts. The Relative Criterig In using the relative criteria, it was first de- cided that tracts in which the Mexican or Puerto Rican population occurred in numbers larger than twice their average density for the city as a whole--l.2 per cent and 0.9 per cent respectively--were significantly dense and should be included as part of the study area. This amounted to 154 of the 935 total census tracts in the city. Exam- ination revealed that these tracts accounted for more than two thirds of all the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in the city and indicated a certain amount of nucleation. All of these were then further classified as follows: 1) tracts with from two to five times the average city density: 66 2) tracts with from five to ten times the average city density: 3) tracts having more than ten times the average city density. It was further decided to create a fourth category of less density to designate secondary tracts which might be in transition. This last classification would be of particular value when comparing the growth pattern shown on later maps. Therefore, tracts which displayed a den- sity at least equal to the city average and which were ad- jacent to tracts already accepted as part of the study area were added. This brought the total number of census tracts to 184 and accounted for approximately three fourths of the Mexican and Puerto Rican population. According to these criteria, a map was made for each group and a composite of the two maps was constructed. This map revealed a pattern of considerable nucleation and some smaller, more dispersed "centers" which were either strongly Mexican or Puerto Rican or, in some instances, areas which had significant representation from both groups. While this method produced a map which appeared ac- ceptable for further analysis, some question as to the ac- curacy of its representation arose. The major weakness of the (ca: tlo: pro 1mm rev der Uh: it M 67 the method arises from the fact that the units of reference (census tracts) are not uniform in area or in total pepula- tion density. It was noted that some tracts showed a high proportion of Spanish-speaking people while their absolute numbers were quite small. Also, in some other cases the reverse was true and large numbers of Latin American resi- dents were “overwhelmed” by other groups in certain tracts which had very high total population densities. Therefore, it was decided to re~map the city based upon the absolute number of Spanish-speaking residents in each tract and compare the results with the previous map. The Absolute Criteria Method In examining the tracts considered in the relative criteria method it was noted that most of those showing a density greater than twice the city average contained more than one hundred Mexicans or Puerto Ricans. Therefore, using one hundred Puerto Ricans or Mexicans as a new cri- teria a map was constructed which consisted of 139 census tracts and accounted for approximately three-fourths of the total.Mexican/Puerto Rican population. While this more com- pact map showed ten per cent more population in 15 fewer tracts, it proved not to be significantly different areally from the pattern based on the relative criteria. I! he 68 To establish the ”transitional" areas, secondary tracts with between 50 and 100 Mexicans or Puerto Ricans were selected. This increased the area to 212 tracts which accounted for 85 per cent of their total pepulation. This increased number of secondary tracts will allow for better growth pattern comparisons with the 1970 data. These maps, therefore, present an accurate representation of the loca- tion of the majority of the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans liv- ing in the city in 1960. (See Figures 4—1 and 4-2) A cursory glance at Figure 4-l demonstrates that there is no one strong nucleus with a progressively dimin- ishing density outward from the center. Rather, there ap- pears to be one strong area and several sub-centers scat- tered from north to south along the eastern half of the city. Therefore, any "sub-regionalizing' of the settlement pattern may reveal several locational factors. An additional pattern readily obvious is the inci- dence of co-occupation by both groups of certain census tracts. It is easily seen that there are mostly Puerto Ricans and some Mexicans in the north of the study area, several tracts in the large central area which have high densities of both groups, and then, moving toward the south, the Puerto Ricans give way to the Mexicans and in 69 I AREA 1 NEAR NORTH AREA 1! CENTRAL VEST b_---_ IIWIIII'IIIlIlHIIIIII I. II II' IIIIHHHIIlllllllunlllillllJm- -_—_-—-_—_-—-—-_-_- AREA III: FAR SOUTH PRIMARY STUDY AREA l960 IEXICAR AREA PUIRTO RICAR ARIA COIIURED AREA - IIHHIIIIIIIIIIII. E IIIIIHHWW”II/”WWW" Q Figure 4-1. Primary Study Area: 1960 70 AREA 1 'IIIIIIIII Mn 1:: can“. \u" NEAR NORTN 1'1'5‘3‘ =5 32:22 l ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMI . ' ............ .................................... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII oooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -—---—- - ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII nu 1:: gm FAR SOUTH SECONDARY STUDY AREA |960 PRINARY AREA sceouoanv AREA IIIII IIIII "IIII O 1 L-H miles Figure 4-2 . Secondary Study Area: 1960 71 the far south the situation has reversed and there are mostly Mexicans with some few Puerto Ricans present. Given this basic distribution, and with some basic knowledge of the general organization of the city, it is suggested that three sub-areas be created to facilitate further analysis. Area I: the Near North, consisting of tracts in com- munity areas 3-6-7-8-22-23-24; Area II: the Central West, consisting of tracts in community areas 25-26-27-28-29-30-3l-32-33-34-58-59- 60-61: Area 111: the Far South, consisting of tracts in com- munity areas 42-43-46-48-50-51-56. Each of these sub-areas will be exanined to deter- mine which factors are most influential in determining the settle-ent pattern of the Spanish-speaking people. Area I: The Near North3 The Near North portion of the study area consists of 48 census tracts which have Mexican or Puerto Rican popula- tions in excess of 100, plus 31 secondary tracts located in eight Con-unity Areas. Physically, the area is separated from the Central West (Area 11) by a tier of census tracts 3min sub-area of the study is not to be confused with the much smaller community area of the same na-e. vb 72 which lie between Madison and Kinzie Streets to the west and the Chicago River to the east. There was only one pri- mary tract which served as a bridge between the two areas in 1960. This was one of the smaller tracts which had a population of only 196 Puerto Ricans and 78 Mexicans. The area itself is bisected by the North Branch of the Chicago River which causes two segments to appear. One segment forms a linear pattern extending directly north from the Chicago River for a distance of six and one half miles. The other segment, lying to the west of the river, is more compact forming almost a solid rectangle. The farthest point is only five miles distant from the Loop. Where the two segments tend to converge, near the confluence of the two rivers, one of the oldest industrial, ‘warehousing and commercial (wholesaling) areas of the city is located. This activity was first attracted by the rivers and later by the railroads coming in from the north and west which terminate along both sides of the rivers and stop 4 just short of the central retailing district in the Loop. The line of settlement which extends to the north 4Hereafter, the central business district focusing on State and Madison streets will be referred to as the Loop. :1 C0 h: 73 closely follows the main line of public transportation which connects the Loop with the communities of northern Chicago and beyond. It may also be noted that the Spanish-speaking settlement lies inland from the Lake Michigan shore which has been developed into public beaches and parks which are often lined with exclusive high rise apartments and expen- sive condominiums. The housing which developed along this transportation is of the small apartment and two and three family "flat” variety interspersed with some single family dwellings. Almost all of the structures were built prior to 1930 with those nearer the center of the city built be- fore 1910. As the area began to decline, industry an- croached from nearer the rivers spreading along several of the major thoroughfares. While this practice has further added to the decay of the area, it has brought many jobs in warehousing, food processing and light manufacturing within walking distance, or a short ride on public trans- portation, of many of the present residents. Also, the direct line of public transportation puts the Loop with all of its employment potential within a maximum "distance“ of 15 minutes. Also, a railroad line passing to the west of the 1960 settlement area could be used for transportation to th I! 11 ci 74 the business district. However, the commuter service of the railroad is organized more to facilitate the suburbs which lie to the north of Chicago and comparatively few “inner city“ peOple use it on a regular basis. The segment of Area I lying to the west of the North Branch of the Chicago River bears some similarity to the first segment. It is more compact and lies closer to the Loop probably because the areas further to the west and north are newer and had maintained a stable middle class population which did not give way to the practices which lead to neighborhood decay. Like its counterpart to the east of the river, a line of public transportation leading to the Loop passes through the area. There is another line of public trans- portation which lies just to the south of the area and is within easy walking distance of many of the residents. Also, there are important railroad lines passing just to the south of the area and parallel to the North Branch of the river. while these are of less importance for trans- portation there is considerable industrial development as- sociated with them. Also, to the west of the area there are two large railroad maintenance yards which supply ad- ditional employment. Ci th at 75 Industry associated with the area tends to be lo- cated more along the periphery rather than mixed in with the residential pattern. Many of the major thoroughfares are lined with commercial activity some of which is lo- cated in the first floors of partially converted apartments and ”flats.“ The western part of the area is mostly residential of the two and three family flat and single family dwelling variety. However, around Humboldt Park some larger, more substantial homes had been built around the turn of the century. Many of these structures have been converted into apartments and the entire area shows signs of crowding. In the eastern part of the area, the housing is older and poorer and some industry has encroached from near the river. The census of 1960 indicated that approximately 45 per cent (14,682) of the city's total Puerto Rican and 14 per cent (6,401) of the city's Mexican population were lo- cated within Area I. A cursory glance at the map indicates that the Puerto Ricans outnumber the Mexican both in num- bers of tracts involved and in density. (Figure 4-3) Figure 4-4 was constructed to aid in the analysis of the internal structure of the area. While the map on 76 AREA I-NEAR NORTH STUDY AREA l960 Figure 4-3. Near North Study Area: 1960 PRIMARY TR ACTS sscou 0%!" TRACTS :0 ("WW , of Tracts '0 O 20 Number PUEIRTO RICAN MEXICAN] PUERTO RIC HEXI CAN COMBIN ED qousmr-m C K r usxncsu I: PUERTO menu [Emu] Figure 4-4. Near North: Distribution of Study Area Census Tracts pa th 31 78 page 76 clearly demonstrates the lack of cohesion of the Mexican tracts, Figure 4-4 further shows that only five of the Mexican tracts are not shared by Puerto Ricans, while 31 Puerto Rican tracts stand alone. Twelve of the tracts are occupied by both groups, however, 11 of these shared tracts have substantially larger numbers of Puerto Ricans than Mexicans. The 17 nexican primary tracts average only 177 while the Puerto Ricans average 298 in 43 tracts. Thirteen of these 43 tracts had more than 300 Puerto Ricans in residence; one tract having over 1,000. It is also significant to note that while the Puerto Ricans dominate the total area they are particularly strong closer to the central business district whereas the lexi- cans are almost equally distributed throughout, which further indicates the much greater nucleation of the Puerto Ricans in the area. In analyzing the transitional areas of the Near north, the characteristic of the nexican population toward dispersal and the Puerto Rican toward nucleation is further demonstrated. While there are 38 Mexican secondary tracts well scattered throughout the area there are only 16 such Puerto Rican tracts. Furthermore, the Puerto Rican tracts lie closer to the Loop in a more compact pattern. Also, 79 of the 38 Mexican secondary tracts, ten are found to be dominated by Puerto Ricans while only two of the 15 Puerto Rican secondary tracts are in Mexican dominated areas. Only seven of the secondary tracts are combined tracts, each showing fewer than 100 Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Therefore, it is evident that the Near North area was dominated by the Puerto Ricans in 1960. However, if the secondary Mexican areas are truly transitional and if the Puerto Ricans continue to show their more highly nu- cleated pattern, the following decade could show the Mexi- cans dominating the area spatially if not necessarily nu- merically. In 1960, the Near North area was known to contain most of the city's estimated 5,000 Cubans. Since no formal census of their numbers was taken, information made avail- able by the Cuban Association and the Immigrants Service League located them in the same “general“ area as that in- habited by the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans.5 (Figure 4-5) At that time, the Cubans were just beginning to arrive in the city and their organization was finding inexpensive housing for them in the ethnically well mixed area of the 50a Curutchet, o .cit., p. 84. 80 CUOAN SETTLEHENT PM’TERN - IOOO 70% OF CUBAN POPULATION 20". OF CU BAN POPULATION Source: Marta Isabel Kollman do Curutchet, "Location of the Mexican and Cuban Pepulation of Chicago." Figure 4-5. Cuban Settlement Pattern: 1960 (by Community Area) Sea plc Spa has 81 Near North. There they received some financial aid, em- ployment guidance, and orientation within an area of other Spanish-speaking people. In 1960 the Cubans were still basically displaced and it would take some time before they would be able and willing to make more decisions, including where they would live and work, for themselves. It is known that most Cubans were settled in the segment lying between the North Branch river and the lake and more toward the outer areas of the Spanish-speaking area rather than closer to the Loop. However, we have seen that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans do not always share the same tracts and therefore we cannot pinpoint the tracts of greatest Cuban pepulation simply through an hypothesized but untested cor- relation. Therefore, we will have to be satisfied with the very general locational pattern shown on the map, realizing that the Cuban papulation was still very small in 1960. Area II: The Central-West The Central-West area is the largest of the three sub-regions. It is composed of 71 primary tracts plus 35 secondary tracts located in 12 Community Areas and had a population of 23,934 Mexicans, 53 per cent of the city's total and 12,418 Puerto Ricans, 36 per cent of the total in 1960. (Figure 4-6) 82 iLglf’ Il“IIIHIHIHINHNHIIlllllllllllllH l ”I w ”Wm IIIIWWW MIIIHWIWIII 1 miles I-Z-Z-I . . . "‘IHHIIIIIMM NIH III: II a I'l'lr‘liTI II II III II I ' H..." ”III Ell." 01¢; Hg: 5 z .E u4<8 E ‘553: E ‘ << < >-<-> t m¢>2.,. 5‘,‘§3»3< a O (1260;092:89 P: o¢oxh‘hx;<;: ‘2.- ”assets-5:3 3‘0 33:32:333t3c‘ Figure 4-6. Central West Study Area: 1960 83 Physically, most of the area forms a very dense pattern extending almost from the lake shore to the west- ern city limits some six and one half miles away. The densest pattern lies between Madison and Roosevelt streets with a strong appendage extending from the western side of the South Branch of the Chicago River. Part of the pattern crosses to the east side of the river just south of the central business district. The areas which lie near the river are part of the oldest development in the city. Much was included in the original city charter. Railroad yards are particularly dense along both sides of the river and there is considerable warehousing and light industrial activity. As this area developed early in Chicago's history as an industrial and poor working class residential area it became a slum before the turn of the century. As it was located just outside the fire zone of 1871, thousands of people crowded in with many families "doubling up” in apartments or building cheap wooden shacks. After the fire crisis passed, many of the people moved back across the river and the vacated shacks and rundown tenements were filled‘by the new immigrant wave of the 1880's and 1890's. This became the famous--or infamous--Hull House are: sluI it Sh C3 tu 84 area of the early twentieth century, one of Chicago's worst slums. It was into this slum area and some of the nearby railroad yards that Chicago's first Mexican population set- tled prior to 1920. While some of the worst buildings have been torn down, the area remains one of poorer quality housing with a considerable amount of industrial usage mixed in. Where the South Branch River turns toward the west, it becomes canalized as part of the present Sanitary and Ship Canal (part of the original Illinois and Michigan Canal). Industrial development, much of it heavy manufac- turing, building supplies and warehousing, with a strong associated railroad development, dominates the north side of the canal and explains why the Mexican settlement does not extend further south in this area. Along the south shore of the canal the pattern of industrial and railroad development is similar to, but not as dense as, the pattern along the northern shore. There is a large railroad yard located in the one census tract which shows a considerable Mexican population. A mile south of the canal is located a compact dense settlement of mostly Mexican population. This area is often referred to as New Town. It owes its development can. are cor of re; tr' by in th tk 85 to three factors. To the north, extending nearly to the canal, is the “central industrial district,” a very large area containing many establishments. In the northwest corner of the settlement and all along the eastern margin of the area is a very sense series of railroad lines and repair and maintenance yards. Finally, and originally of most importance, the Union Stock Yards are in the center of the settlement area. Originally the Mexican population was attracted to the railroad yards and then to the indus- trial sector as the stock yard employment was then dominated by Europeans. Recently, however, more Mexicans have been involved in the labor force at the stock yards.6 The largest, most concentrated portion of Area 11, that part lying north of the canal and west of the river, is well serviced by public transportation leading directly to the Loop. One line runs along the northern border of the area (mentioned in connection with Area I) and another line passes through the densely populated area to the south. This puts the LOOp from ten to 20 minutes away for most residents. South of the river, and in New City, however, public transportation is not as well developed. There is no 5rnc Union Stock Yards closed in 1971. eleI rel. lie the thi 51C Th Di bu ab 0: 86 elevated or subway in the area and public transportation relies upon busses which are more confusing to use and have inferior schedules to the electric trains. Therefore, pub- lic transportation is much superior in the northern part of the area. An analysis of the internal settlement pattern of this, the largest area, suggests some interesting conclu- sions. Figure 4-7 indicates that there are three times as many independent Mexican tracts as there are Puerto Rican and that an additional 21 tracts are shared by the two. The distribution of these tracts, however, is of more sig- nificance. The two northernmost tiers of tracts contain all but three of the total Puerto Rican tracts, independent and shared. These two tiers lie just to the south of the Puerto Rican dominated portion of Area 1. South of Roosevelt Road, there were only three tracts with Puerto Rican pOpulations over 100 and all three of these were shared with Mexican populations. Only one of the three was located south of the river and that tract was located just at the bend in the river and only two miles from the Loop. Also, the main south line of the subway passes along the eastern margin of that tract. The remainder of Area II south of the river and canal was virtually devoid of Puerto Rican population in A v L.d:-.....2 ad .3» a... LL. I. C 3t 87 PRIMARY TRACTS SECON DA RY TRACTS '—_T o E 20 E I IO 3 3 s m 5 s 3 g E E 8 9s usxucau [:j PUERTO mean [11mm Figure 4-7. Central west: Distribution of Study Area Census Tracts 1960. coulI 25 t Rica the Hex: shOI lar onl Can bot Tea in 3t to 88 1960. Not even a secondary tract of only 50 Puerto Ricans could be found in the New City area. The Mexican primary tracts average 377 persons with 25 tracts having over 300 and one over 2,000. The Puerto Ricans with 297 persons per tract continued to show about the same density as in Area I. In further analyzing the secondary pattern, the Mexicans again show a greater number of tracts. Figure 4-6 shows 33 Mexican transitional tracts of which only five had larger Puerto Rican pOpulations, while the Puerto Ricans had only twelve secondary tracts of which eight had larger Mexi- can populations. Only two secondary tracts are shared by both groups. In examining the location of the secondary tracts on the map it is noted that the Puerto Rican tracts tend to remain close to the established pattern (two-thirds of them are in Mexican areas) while the Mexican secondary tracts are more scattered, probing into marginal areas. Therefore, Area II shows a definite shift in the dominating population groups. The Puerto Ricans were strongest in the north, there was a strong mixed area toward the center and the Mexicans dominated the south. Once again, as in Area I, the Puerto Ricans appeared to be more lPP‘ tat. the of tit 11; tr: Y3] ni ca go 11 1c 89 more clustered and located nearer the LoOp. Again there appeared to be the influence of the major public transpor- tation lines. The Puerto Rican tracts were all close to the lines while several of the Mexican tracts were in areas of poor public transportation. There was also a continua- tion of the trend for Puerto Ricans to be found in areas of light industry and commercial activity while some Mexican tracts appear to show a direct association with railroad yards, stock yards and heavy industry. The Cubans in Area II in 1960 were even less sig- nificant than in Area I. The few Cubans present were lo- cated more in the northern part of the area, closer to good transportation to the Loop and local commercial and light industrial employment opportunities. No accurate location of their numbers was available. Area III: The Far South The Far South portion of the study area is the least consolidated and smallest of the three. Physically, it consists of 20 primary tracts and seven secondary tracts located in seven Community Areas. (Figure 4-8) Of the 20 primary census tracts in the area, Figure 4-9 indicates the dominance of the Mexicans. While there are 12 tracts dom- inated by Mexicans there are only five Puerto Rican tracts 90 'l’I”WIIIIIIIIIHHIIHIIIUIIIIIII H AREA 111- FAR SOUTH STUDY AREA I960 ounces PIIIARY Ann 5 anus»: accesses: sets a Issue mess PIIIAIY sass W cossmso nusssv sass O l f L 1 miles Figure 4—8. Far South Study Area: 1960 and III: OVE deI PII PI :1 91 and only three tracts show combined populations. Of the three combined tracts, two are dominated by Mexicans, one overwhelmingly so. The Mexican primary tracts show a high average density of 474 with two tracts having over 1,000. The Puerto Ricans maintained an average of 283 in only eight primary tracts. The nearest part of the area lies six miles south of the Loop while the farthest tracts are 12 miles away. This places this area much farther frOm the LoOp than the other two. It is also more separated from the other two areas. The nearest tract in Area II is some three miles away. In examining the map, three separate clusters ap- pear. One in the north which is oriented toward the Uni- versity of Chicago area, a somewhat larger cluster in the center which is oriented toward the heavy industry along the southern lake shore and the Calumet channel, and a third smaller, less cohesive settlement farther to the southwest which is oriented toward industry which developed there before the turn of the century where railroads coming from the East turned north toward Chicago. Those first railroads could not follow closer to the lake shore due t0 1" 92 to the swampy terrain there. George Pullman recognized the potential of the area, a large expanse of flat land far enough away from Chicago to be inexpensive, yet, with the railroad, close enough to maintain a close association with the city. Near the turn of the century he and others de- veloped a sizable industrial base which attracted an early population. The Far South has some of the same settlement fac- tors that are found in the other two areas. However, there are also some differences, or at least some extremes, found there that should demonstrate some additional influences on the settlement pattern of the Spanish-speaking people there. The Far South area had the smallest Spanish-speaking population of the three. In 1960, the census counted 7,726 Mexicans, 17 per cent of the city's total, and 2,564 Puerto Ricans, eight per cent of the city's total. There was no evidence of a Cuban population at that time. The first cluster of tracts located in the northern part of the area is in the general vicinity of the Univer- sity of Chicago. There are two primary sources of employ- ment in the area, the University of Chicago, which employs many people in general maintenance and especially in the hospitals and clinics associated with the medical school: hi the dic do: tw SO 39 of tk 93 and the wealthy residential area of the South Shore which employs many domestics and other service personnel. While the Mexicans had the earliest association, their numbers did not grow and in 1960 only one tract of the six near the university showed a Mexican population and that tract was dominated by Puerto Ricans. To the south of this cluster, two Mexican tracts did appear. They appear to be more as- sociated with railroad yards in the vicinity than with the university. The denser Puerto Rican population in this area again appears to be attracted to the cheap housing, much of which was built to accommodate the 1893 World's Fair, and the Opportunity of light industrial and service type employ- ment. Also, the southern extension of a major line of the public transportation system connected this area with the Loop. Therefore, the central business district with its employment potential was also available to the residents of the area in 1960. The larger cluster of tracts farther to the south is dominated by Mexicans. Only two Puerto Rican tracts ap— pear in the nine tract cluster and they are overwhelmingly dominated by Mexicans. The industry in the area is predominantly heavy in na ti 94 nature. Iron and steel furnaces and rolling mills and as- sociated activity in railroad yards and in the port facili- ties located along the Calumet channel and in the Lake Calu- met harbor area create a general work atm08phere quite dif- ferent from that of Area I or Area II or even the northern cluster in Area III near the University of Chicago. In 1960, there was no public transportation between this area and the Loop. Only private automobiles or the commuter railroad provided a link between this area and the central business district. Therefore, most of the residents here depended more strongly upon local develOpment to meet their needs. Only the middle and upper income families had a regular association with the Loop. The third, much smaller cluster lies at some dis- tance to the southwest. The three tracts there are Mexican and they occupy some of the oldest housing in the area. In 1960 there were several large manufacturing establishments in the area, one of which was a large branch of the Inter- national Harvester Company, and associated railroad and warehousing activity. Transportation to the Loop was lim— ited to the railroads or private automobiles. In examining the secondary tracts in the area the dominance of the Mexican population is again noted. There 95 are seven Mexican tracts and only three Puerto Rican (Figure 4-9). Of the three Puerto Rican tracts two are Mexican dominated, while all seven of the Mexican secondary tracts are independent. There were no shared secondary tracts in 1960. In many ways the Far South area is the antithesis of the Near North. It is predominantly Mexican, oriented toward heavier industry and much of the area was in a state of semi-isolation with the Loop area of Chicago due to poor mass transportation facilities. Also, the overall settle- ment pattern appears much less nucleated. For the size of the Spanish-speaking population involved, it is much more dispersed than in the other two areas. However, the Puerto Ricans are not dispersed throughout the area as are the .Mexicans. They continue to show the greater nucleation of the two. Summer Checking the 1960 census data for Spanish-speaking people in the City Of Chicago from two points of view, rela- tive and absolute, indicates that they are located in cer- tain areas rather than dispersed throughout the city. While there is no one location which contains all of the Spanish- speaking people to the point of exclusion of other ethnic PRIMARY TRACTS o E 20 '§ 2. I.— 10 'W' z a 3 § 83 E 35 Illlllllllll a E M usxncsu D PUERTO RICAN , W Figure 4-9. Far South: Distribution of Study Area Census Tracts 96 SECONDARY TRACTS 97 groups, it must be remembered that the factors most basic to the location of these people exist in many areas of the city. Transportation lines radiate from the center of the city to several points, low cost housing is found in several areas, industry is located in many places and commercial activity, although centered on the Loop, is also found in many sub- centers and strips. However, these first maps do indicate a particular settlement pattern relative to the rest of the city. First, the majority of the population is settled nearer the center of the city with an extension to the north and south along the lake. Second, there are a variety of employment oppor- tunities in industry and commerce near or mixed in with the settlement area. Third, most of the area, with the ex— ceptions noted in the south, has adequate public transpor- tation. Fourth, the settlement is associated with the older areas of the city, even those located at some dis- tance from the Loop, and it is absent from the areas of the farther southwest and northwest. In looking at the internal structure of the settle- ment, several interesting anomalies are evident. First there is the definite domination of Puerto Ricans in the north and Mexicans in the south with the greatest numbers If both though In Chifi number Hexicad groups Point person 90M: the i the )4 the 5 “ed We that Pue; the hex hex Set 8Pa the 98 of both appearing near the center of the distribution. Al- though the term 'Spanish-speaking community" is often used in Chicago, the 1960 pattern reveals that only a limited number of tracts, 36 of 139, have significant combined Mexican and Puerto Rican populations. In attempting to analyze the nucleation of the two groups, different answers are arrived at depending upon the point of view taken. If we consider the average number of persons per each primary census tract, we find the Mexican population to be denser than the Puerto Rican by virtue of the fact that each occupies the same number of tracts and the Mexicans had a larger pepulation in 1960. If we add the secondary tracts, we find the two groups virtually tied: the Puerto Ricans more concentrated, the Mexicans more dispersed. However, if we examine the map, we see that the Mexican tracts are much more dispersed than the Puerto Rican, ranging farthest north, south and west from the Loop. Also it was noted that there are many more Mexican secondary tracts than Puerto Rican and that these Mexican tracts appear to be probing beyond the stronger settlement pattern rather than just filling in the blank spaces as the Puerto Ricans seem to be doing. However, the transitional character of these tracts will not be proven if the and 1f cum itely in 196 Small with t’ in th; Pears trans late: area Yard the it“ 99 proven until an analysis of the 1970 pattern is made. Then, if the Puerto Ricans maintain their basic spatial pattern and if their members increase to where they equal the Mexi- cans, as is quite likely, the Puerto Ricans will be defin- itely the more nucleated of the two. The Cubans were probably the most nucleated of all in 1960 as they really only occupied Area 1. However, their small numbers make it impossible to equate their position with the other groups. Two differentiating locational factors also appear in this first analysis. The Puerto Rican population ap- pears to concentrate near the major arteries of the public transit system whereas many of the Mexicans are more iso— lated from the central city. Also, more Mexicans appear in areas in close proximity to heavy industry and railroad yards than do the Puerto Ricans. Additional analysis of the internal character of the 1960 pattern will take place in the next chapter. tern anal of t cess ciat cit} bet‘ COS} CHAPTER V ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 1960 STUDY AREA In the previous chapter, the basic settlement pat- tern of the Spanish-Speaking community was delimited and analyzed spatially as to its relationship with the remainder of the city. Of particular interest were the factors of ac- cessibility to employment and transportation and the asso- ciation with the established residential pattern of the city. However, of equal importance are the associations between the ethnic groups within the total population of a cosmopolitan city. As indicated in earlier chapters, Chi- cago's population established several ethnic neighborhoods which evolved and changed composition as new groups entered the population mix. The affinity of one group for another has always posed an interesting question. It is of special significance in this study as it has already been seen that Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and cubans do not always settle in the same areas. Therefore, this chapter will investigate the ethnic structure of the study area in an attempt to 100 est: this 1an we: 9N the ear Sp; in C02 3 tE ta 101 establish a pattern of ethnic association. An analysis of this factor may contribute to further understanding of the influences on the settlement pattern of the Spanish-speaking pepulation in Chicago. Ethnic Characteristics of the Study;§£gg All areas within the Spanish-speaking community were previously occupied by other groups. Often several groups had been associated with the area and the coming of the Spanish-speaking people did not completely displace the earlier residents. Also, there is the possibility that the Spanish-speakers were not the only people moving into the area during the past ten years. The inner city is one of constantly shifting populations of which the Latin American peeple are but one group. The Primary Study Area The 139 primary census tracts were examined to de- termine which ethnic groups showed the strongest represen- tation. The three groups showing the largest population in each tract were selected for further analysis. Table 5-1 is a summary of the ethnic groups present in the primary study area. It shows the number of times each group was dominant, second or third. It also shows the total number 102 TABLE 5-1 Leading Ethnic Groups in 1960 Study Area by Census Tracts Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Puerto Rican 34 25 27 86 Polish 31 10 12 53 Mexican 28 40 21 89 Italian 25 29 12 ‘ 66 German 16 16 32 64 Irish 2 4 9 15 Russian (Jews) 1 9 6 16 Czechoslovakian 1 4 8 13 Swedish 1 2 3 6 Canadian 0 0 6 6 British 0 0 2 2 Hungarian O O 1 1 Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 of times each group made a significant contribution to the population mix of the tracts involved. This table clearly demonstrates how seldom either Puerto Ricans or Mexicans were the leading ethnic group in ‘tbe census tracts they resided in. It must also be remem- bered that “leading“ ethnic group does not mean a dominance over all other groups combined. The strong position of the Germans, Italians and :Podish is not unusual in that they were the leading ethnic 103 groups in the city at large. Also, it appears that the pat- tern of succession was still important. The Puerto Ricans and Mexicans had been moving into areas where the Polish and Italians, the most recent and unskilled of the last strong European immigration period, had replaced the ear- lier Germans and Irish. The weakness of the Irish is partly due to their limited immigration during the past several decades which resulted in making many people of Irish descent ineligible for enumeration under the ”Irish“ category.1 The remaining seven groups show only limited repre- sentation, mostly in the third position. The Czechs and the Irish are the most important of these later groups. While this general examination of ethnic associa- tion is of some value, it must be remembered that the map of the Spanish-speaking community cuts across a large sec- ‘tion of the city. Therefore, we must also investigate each of the three sub-areas for their specific patterns. The Hear North Table 5-2 is a summary of the ethnic associations 111 the 49 primary tracts of Area I. The domination of the 1To qualify for enumeration within a foreign cate- gory in the 1960 census, a person had to be born abroad or have at least one parent born abroad. 104 TABLE 5-2 Leading Ethnic Groups in Area I by Census Tract--196O Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Polish 17 l 7 25 German 15 6 14 35 Puerto Rican 8 18 8 34 Italian 7 8 5 20 Russian (Jews) 1 8 2 11 Swedish 1 1 1 3 Mexican 0 4 7 11 Irish 0 3 4 7 Canadian 0 0 1 l Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 Puerto Ricans over the Mexicans is again clearly seen when it is noted that in none of the tracts are the Mexicans the leading ethnic group. Their weakness is further dem- onstrated in the last column of the table where they are tied with the Russians for fifth out of nine groups pres- ent.2 The strong German representation is a reflection of the early settlement by Germans in the area directly north of the city and later out around Humboldt Park. Therefore, the outstanding pattern of the Near 2Most of the Russian immigrants were Jewish. 105 North is the strength of the Puerto Ricans, the weakness of the Mexicans and the strong association with the Germans. One of the more important of the lesser groups, the Czecho- slovakians, is totally absent in the area while the Rus- sians and the Irish are disproportionately larger than their representation in the total area would indicate. The Central West The 71 primary tracts of the Central West present a slightly broader ethnic base than that of the Near North. While this area was shown to have a much larger Mexican population than Puerto Rican, Table 5-3 further demonstrates TABLE 5-3 Leading Ethnic Groups in Area II by Census Tract-~1960 ” _—_ —;v m —_ - Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Mexican 22 32 ll 65 Puerto Rican 20 6 19 45 Italian l7 l6 6 39 Polish 8 5 4 17 Irish 2 1 3 6 German 1 6 13 20 Czechoslovakian 1 4 7 12 Russian (Jews) 0 l 3 4 Canadian 0 O 3 3 Swedish 0 O 1 1 British 0 0 l l Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960. 106 the difference in their concentrations. The Mexicans rep- resent the leading ethnic group in only two more tracts than do the Puerto Ricans. However, the Mexicans demon- strate their importance in the area with a much larger total representation especially where they appear as the second most numerous group within the tracts. In the Central West, the Italians have replaced the Germans as the leading EurOpean group and the Poles, by virtue of their strong representation in the first and second positions, may also be seen as slightly more impor— tant than the Germans. One group which shows considerable strength in the area is the Czechoslovakians. An area of the city known as Little Pilsen situated just north of the Sanitary and Ship Canal has been encroached upon strongly by'the Mexicans in their movement west from the older area located nearer the South Branch river. The information in Table 5-3 continues to demon- strate the stronger nucleation of the Puerto Ricans. The shift in the relative importance of the other European groups is a reflection of the fact that fewer Germans were in this area to begin with and that in some older neighbor- hoods they had already given way to the incoming Polish and Italians. 107 The Far South The much smaller area of the Far South has been shown to be a definite Mexican area. They lead in total numbers and in number of tracts dominated within the area. However, Table 5-4 again demonstrates the importance of TABLE 5-4 Leading Ethnic Groups in Area III by Census Tract--l960 Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Mexican 13 Puerto Rican Polish Italian German Irish Swedish Canadian .Russian (Jews) Czechoslovakian British Hungarian COOOOOOOHO‘O‘O‘ OOOOOHOAwbH-b h‘k‘h‘h‘k’h‘kiulh'h'oww H hohoh-h'ninin:u>~lwwu Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 nucleation. The Puerto Ricans although much smaller in total numbers are tied with the Mexicans in numbers of tracts in which they represent the leading ethnic group. In total representation, the Mexicans lead the Puerto 108 Ricans by only five. The much larger Mexican population, with a lengthy tradition in the area, is so distributed as to be about equal to that of the Poles. Although this area has the fewest tracts, it has the broadest ethnic base of all three. However, much of the representation is slight and it must be remembered that all three areas were represented by almost all of the groups present in Table 5-1. The Black Population It was mentioned that the Spanish-speaking people were only one of the dynamic groups within the city. No study of ethnic groups would be complete without including an analysis of association with the large, rapidly growing and spatially re-organizing minority group, the Blacks. Of the 139 primary census tracts in the 1960 study area, the Blacks were the dominant "ethnic" group in 52. Further, the Blacks were found to dominate the combined numbers of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in 51 of the 52 in- stances. To further demonstrate Black importance to an area when they are present in any numbers, there were only 11 tracts of the 139 in which the Blacks were not the leading group when they were present in excess of 100 per- sons. This is not seen as unusual since the Blacks have 109 been 'ghettoized“ from the beginning and usually become the overwhelming population in any area into which they move e It has been shown in some instances that Blacks tend to have a stronger association with Puerto Ricans than any other group. The Puerto Ricans settled in the slums of Harlem in New York during the 1950's and 1960's. Some believe this is true because of a stronger racial association between Blacks and the Caribbean Islands than with the Mexican mainland. However, since there was no large Mexican settlement in New York City no direct com- parison of co-settlement could be made. In Chicago, how- ever, we can investigate the settlement association of “both groups with the Blacks within the city. In the Near North, Blacks occupy only 14 of the 49 tracts of the area in numbers greater than 100. (In six of these they number over 1,000.) Of these 14 tracts, they are dominant in ten. All ten of these tracts are Puerto Rican. Blacks number less than 25 in all five of the Mexican tracts. In the seven additional tracts which have Mexican populations over 100 (even though outnumbered by larger Puerto Rican populations), only three have Blacks in excess of 100. Therefore, there appears to be a much 110 stronger association between Blacks and Puerto Ricans in this primary area. In the Central West, in which Mexican tracts out- number Puerto Rican tracts nearly two to one, it is found that of the 24 Puerto Rican tracts 20 are dominated by Blacks. Of the 46 Mexican tracts, however, only 13 are Black dominated. In all 13, the Blacks are present in overwhelming numbers and outnumber the combined Mexican and Puerto Rican population. In the remaining 33 Mexican tracts, Blacks number more than 100 in only five. Therefore, in this area where the Mexicans far outnumber the Puerto Ricans, both in papu- lation and number of census tracts, there was still a much stronger association of Blacks and Puerto Ricans. In the Far South, which also shows a larger Mexican population, all six of the Puerto Rican tracts were over- whelmed by Blacks while only three of 13 Mexican tracts were dominated by Black populations. Therefore, in 1960, in the area as a whole, 49 per cent of the Puerto Rican tracts were Black dominated while only 25 per cent of the Mexican tracts had that associa- tion. Also, in examining all three of the sub-regions the pattern of stronger Black/Puerto Rican association was found. 111 Ethnic Associations in the Secondary Areas There is also a need to examine the ethnic associa- tions in the secondary area of the study, those tracts showing some Spanish-speaking population but not in large enough numbers to be of strong influence. Since we now know of the associations present in the primary area, we should know if the same pattern exists in the areas of lesser density. Then, when the 1970 pattern is investi- gated we will be able to see how the areas of new growth correlate with existing patterns of association. Also, areas in 1970 which show a loss of Spanish-speaking popu-. lation can be examined for their pattern of associated groups which have increased or decreased over the decade. Ethnic Associations in the Total Secondary Area Table 5-5 summarizes the ethnic association of all the secondary tracts of the study area. The most obvious change, of course, is in the lesser role played by Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. Since their numbers were limited by definition it is known that they will never account for more than 99 of the total population in the tract. It is, therefore, perhaps more significant that they appear as any of the three leading groups. An investigation discloses that when either Puerto Ricans or 112 TABLE 5-5 Leading Ethnic Groups in Census Tracts of Secondary Study Area--l960 p Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Polish 29 ll 8 48 Italian 13 10 ll 34 Puerto Rican 7 2 4 13 German 6 22 21 49 Irish 5 5 7 17 Mexican 3 10 7 20 Czechoslovakian 3 2 2 7 Russian (Jews) 2 7 3 12 Swedish 2 0 1 3 Hungarian l 0 l 2 Norwegian O l 2 3 British 0 l 3 4 Canadian 0 0 l l Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 Mexicans appeared as ”major” groups there were very few foreign groups present within those tracts. The three groups, German—Polish-Italian, which had been most important following the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in the primary tracts, are now seen to be the most important groups. While the Germans and Poles are about equal in total representation, the Poles appear to have a stronger association by virtue of their dominance as the leading ethnic group in 29 of the 71 total tracts while the 113 Germans are no longer as strong in the leading category. The other ethnic groups follow about the same pat- tern with perhaps a closer association seen with the Irish and Russians. Otherwise, there are no significant addi- tions or subtractions to the ethnic association pattern of the primary area. In investigating the secondary tracts of the Near North it is seen in Table 5-6 that the Puerto Ricans still TABLE 5-6 Leading Ethnic Groups in Census Tracts of Area I--1960 Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Polish 15 5 4 24 German 6 12 6 24 Italian 4 4 7 15 Puerto Rican 3 2 2 7 Russian (Jews) 2 4 3 9 Czechoslovakian 1 O 0 1 Mexican 0 l 3 4 Irish 0 l 2 3 Norwegian 0 l 2 3 British 0 1 1 2 Swedish 0 O l l Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 114 retain some of their importance in the area by dominating three of the 31 tracts and showing some representation in the second and third categories. The Mexicans continue to present a weak position even though most of the secondary tracts appear on the map due to Mexican influence. The remainder of the pattern appears similar to that of the primary tracts of the area with the Poles, Germans and Italians maintaining strong positions. Perhaps the most dramatic change is seen in Irish representation. They are almost non-existent in the secondary tracts of the Near North. While the Central West area was composed of many more primary tracts than the North East, Table 5-7 demon- strates that in secondary tracts the two areas are almost equal in size indicating again the greater compactness and density of the area. Considering the difference in the absolute numbers of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in Area III, it is somewhat surprising to find the Puerto Ricans as the leading ethnic group in one more tract than in the primary area. See 'Table 5-8. It is immediately noticed that Spanish-speaking influence is almost non-existent in the secondary area. This.lack of significance plus the very small number of 115 TABLE 5-7 Leading Ethnic Groups in Census Tracts of Area II--1960 Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Polish 13 4 3 20 Italian 8 5 4 17 Irish 4 3 5 12 Puerto Rican 4 O 2 6 Mexican 3 9 3 15 Czechoslovakian 2 2 2 6 German 0 10 ll 21 British 0 0 2 2 Russian (Jews) 0 l O 1 Canadian 0 0 l 1 Hungarian O 0 1 1 Source: U.S. Census of Papulation and Housing, 1960 TABLE 5-8 Leading Ethnic Groups in Census Tracts of Area III—-1960 Dominant 2nd 3rd Total group group group occurrences Swedish 2 O O 2 Polish 1 2 l 4 Italian 1 l O 2 Irish 1 l 0 2 Hungarian 1 0 O 1 German 0 o 4 4 Russian (News) 0 2 0 2 (Mexican 0 O 1 1 Puerto Rican O O 0 O Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960 116 tracts involved indicate the great concentration of the Spanish-speaking people there. As this secondary area is so small, the "pattern" of ethnic association is almost non-existent. Most of the same groups are present with the Poles and Italians contin- uing to be of importance. The Swedes gained in strength by virtue of two first place positions. Therefore, it appears that the pattern of associa- tion with other European groups remainsabout the same in both the primary and secondary areas. It does not appear that the Latin Americans are moving into neighborhoods showing a predominance of any particular group. However, since it is not yet known if these secondary areas are truly transitional until they are compared to the 1970 pat- terns, we cannot determine if the Latin Americans are leav- ing tracts having a particular ethnic structure. _lack Association in the Secondarerracts The Black association with the secondary tracts shows some shifts in emphasis. There was a general decrease in the percentage (24%) of tracts having a Black population larger than that of the Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. In 15 of the 17 tracts, Blacks outnumbered the Puerto Ricans and Mexicans combined. 117 Of greater significance is the continued emphasis of Black domination in Puerto Rican areas. In the primary tracts, Blacks dominated in 49 per cent. In the secondary tracts, Blacks dominated in 52 per cent. The Mexicans, however, shifted in the other direction and only 18 per cent of their secondary tracts were Black controlled as compared to 25 per cent of their primary tracts. This association of Blacks and Spanish-speaking will be of particular interest in comparing the 1960 pat- tern with that of 1970. It would appear from the above that we should see a stronger association of Blacks and Puerto Ricans. Also we might expect that any new Mexican tracts in 1970 will be located in non-Black areas. Summar In examining the internal characteristics and associations of the study area, several patterns become evident. Of greatest significance is the reinforcement of earlier findings that the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans do not really inhabit the same areas. Even when they inhabit the same general locations in the city, they often occupy sep- arate tracts. As they both seek out similar low cost hous- ing this is eliminated as a factor and since proximity to employment cannot always be cited when we are discussing 118 settlement of the two when they are often separated by only a few blocks, another reason for their lack of close cohesion must be considered. Interviews conducted in the study revealed a social question which effected the Latin American com- munity. There appeared to be a strong ethnocentrism pres- ent in which the Cubans saw themselves as superior to all other Latins and Mexicans placed themselves above the Puerto Ricans. There appears to be more social denial of similarities and a preservation of perceived differences. This continues in several social patterns including “gang“ membership which is highly structured ethnically. The association with other ethnic groups comes as no surprise. As the Spanish—speaking settlement cuts across a wide area of the city, it is expected that they would come into’contact with many of the city's major ethnic groups. For that reason, the 1970 pattern will probably not differ imuch.as far as association with European groups is concerned. Therefore, the strongest factor of social associa- tion.lies with the Black community. The Puerto Rican asso- ciation with Blacks might indicate that the pattern of settlement in New York, where the Blacks and Puerto Ricans occupy Harlem, is not an isolated case. As the Black 119 community has shifted considerably in the past decade, comparison with the 1970 pattern should add appreciably to what was seen in 1960. CHAPTER VI SOC IO-ECONOMIC COND ITIONS IN THE 1960 STUDY AREA In the previous chapter the ethnic associations within the study area were discussed. However, to gain a greater understanding of the total morpholcgy, additional internal patterns should be examined. From the data gath- ered by the census bureau in 1960 several topics which were seen to best further describe the physical and social com- position of the region were selected for analysis. Two classifications involving housing and seven classifications involving the age, education and income of the population will be discussed. A graph produced from these data has been produced, Figure 6-1, and will be referred to through- out this chapter. The graph does not include every census tract of the study area for every classification due to the disclosure rule adopted by the Census Bureau. However, the number of nonreporting tracts is so small compared to the total that their absence is not seen as significant. 120 121 W m m saconuARi TRACTS mwmnmsm soamm anew macho cameos Spam. wooden. mo .02 O O D. nnmxnoz neaaoo 09.23 .02 $05 303 Sad} mpomhe mo .02 000.03 nm>o waoonH madamm :« .no>< :oaom messes mo.oz .nw>< cane ooo.m. won: woflaaaem who and: agents nmL.oz Al. esoocH waaaem mwmno>< ca .Lw>< : oaem messes mo.oz .nm>< soflmm .9300 .mL» Hoonom no .02 Spa? muOMLB «0 .oz .non< cane .mnx mo no>o msomnem nwzem Qua) muomhe mo .02 .nw>< cane .nH ma neon: mcomnmm egos Spa? avenue Mo .02 .no>< Gena mnemSOm endocsumpsm ago: new; nausea no .02 TOTAL REPORTING TRACTS Socio-Eeonomic Conditions of Study Area: 1960 Figure 6-1. 122 A cursory examination of the data revealed that several community areas had census tracts with values far above or below the averages. In an attempt to diminish the undue influence of those tracts, standard deviation tests were performed on data from two of the categories. While this method was of some assistance, the small size of the ”statistical” population, together with the extreme range of values, created a very broad area of “normal” distribu- tion which somewhat decreased the overall value of this type of evaluation. However, field observation in all of the areas allowed for additional qualitative judgement and comments will be made throughout the chapter to bring about greater clarity and accuracy. Housing Characteristics It was suggested earlier that new immigrants set tling within urban centers have been forced by social and economic circumstances to settle in areas of poor, often slan- housing. However, in recent years many large cities have instituted urban renewal projects which have removed many of the older residential units. Government subsidized high rise apartment buildings or blocks of “town houses” have made new housing available for lower income families. However, there is still much housing in the city of Chicago 123 that is substandard. Many of these units are older small single family units, larger homes which have been divided into several “apartments," older two, three and four family “flats,“ and apartment buildings which have been deteriorat- ing over the years. The first part of this chapter will examine the quality of the housing within the Spanish-speaking area, An analysis of two categories of data gathered by the cen- sus “substandard housing“ and “gross rent” will be made 9 to determine the overall quality of the housing and an in- vestigation of public housing and a reconnaissance of the area will reveal the types and quality of the structures most occupied by the Spanish-speaking pOpulation. Public Housing Slum clearance and urban renewal are not new to Chicago. In 1894, Marshall Fields Gardens was constructed on the site of a demolished slum in Chicago's near west side. Sporadically since that time other projects have been completed. However, these poorly coordinated devel- opments did not meet the growing demands for lower income housing and the need for a continuous public housing pro- gram was seen. In 1937 the Chicago Housing Authority was (created to plan and coordinate such a program. As part of 124 a depression inSpired program the project created jobs, cleared some slum areas and provided some of the needed housing. Unfortunately, during the war years little prog- ress was made. That together with the influx of popula- tions to meet the needs of expanding defence production compounded the housing problem. Many of these newcomers did not leave the city after the war. The major thrust of public housing came after World War II. Demolition and construction started in the late 1940's and to date the program has provided 40,239 dwelling units. Several thousand more units are in the planning and development stages for the 1970's.1 Most of this housing was developed close to the inner city and continues to replace much of the oldest slum housing. The program was designed to provide housing for those who lost their homes due to slum clearance, expressway development and other commercial construction projects as well as to take the pressure off existing housing. With the flight to the suburbs of the wealthier families and the continued inward flow of poorer pepulations, the need for low income housing continues to exceed supply. 1Chicago Housing Authority Annual Narrative Re- port, 1970. 125 In examining public housing records and by inter— viewing several Housing Authority officials, it was dis- covered that the vast majority of the tenants were Black.2 Almost none were from the Spanish-speaking population. Investigation into this situation revealed two important factors. First, there was a reluctance on the part of the Latin Americans to become a very small minority group within the limited confines of the high rise apartments or other spatially restrictive housing developments. This is mostly due to the high crime rates in these developments. They fear that as a small minority a disproportionate share of the violence might be directed toward them. This was felt by Puerto Ricans and Mexicans alike. Even in mixed neighborhoods they feel more secure in their own houses and buildings where they have control over who enters and leaves. The second factor is one of cultural background. Most of the Spanish-speaking women and children still belong to a family unit which has a male head of the household. The feeling of “machismo” is still very strong. Therefore, the men have often preferred to maintain the family unit in 2This was not as much the case in public housing reserved for the elderly. However, no Spanish-speakers were in these units either. 126 poor housing and on a small, often irregular income rather than accept welfare and public housing assistance. Therefore, public housing has played almost no role in establishing the settlement pattern of the Spanish- speaking pOpulation in the city even when such housing exists within census tracts having large Latin American residents.3 Substandard Housing Since the Spanish-speaking population does not oc- cupy the public housing facilities, the quality of the private housing occupied becomes important. Is the physical quality of the housing in the study area better than, poorer than or about the same as that found in the rest of the city? The census category which evaluates housing consid- ered to be substandard is perhaps the most valuable in de— termining the physical quality of the housing in the study area. The first column of the graph on page 121 demon- strates that 119 (56%) of the 212 reporting tracts in the study area had more housing in a substandard condition than was average for their surrounding community areas. 3In 1971 and 1972, however, the Spanish-speaking population has been demanding public housing for their own use e 127 Of further interest, nearly 70 per cent of the substandard tracts were within the primary area of Spanish-speaking people indicating that a numerical majority of Latin Ameri- cans live in areas of substandard housing. The remaining 30 per cent of the substandard tracts were in the second- ary areas of the study pattern. This indicates that more of the secondary tracts, tracts which have only limited numbers of Spanish-speakers, were of somewhat better qual- ity housing. Perhaps these tracts were only beginning to give way to minority settlement in 1960. Since there was considerable variation as to the amount of substandard housing found in each tract, it was decided to submit these data to a test of standard devia- tion. This test revealed that 79 of the substandard tracts were located more than one standard deviation below the mean. This means that compared to their immediate neigh- bors these tracts have an extremeley high percentage of their housing units in substandard condition. Of these, 32 were within the Spanish-speaking settlement area. In addition, three of the four tracts which showed very heavy Mexican or Puerto Rican population (over 1,000) were more than one standard deviation below the mean. Therefore, it appears that most of the Latin American population was 128 living in areas in which the housing was substandard. Also, great numbers of them were in areas which were con- siderably below standard. GIOSB Rent Since it is known that most of the Spanish-speaking peOple do not own their own dwellings, it was thought that an analysis of the rents paid for living units would add additional understanding of the physical conditions of housing in the study area. Column two of the graph demon- strates that 136 (66%) of 208 reporting tracts in the study area had gross rents below the average for their community areas. Again, nearly two-thirds of the below average tracts were in the primary study area while one third were in the more lightly populated secondary area. This appears to further demonstrate that those tracts with only a few Spanish-speakers present were in better physical condition. If ”substandard condition" and ”gross rent“ are taken as two important indicators of the physical quality of a residential area, then those areas having values be- low average in both categories most have housing conditions among the poorest in the city. In Area III of the study, 88 per cent of the primary study tracts had below average indicators present for both categories. Area I followed wit bot Ce} 1m tr; am ph ta am oh te st tt t: fa $3 129 with 79 per cent of the primary tracts below average in both categories and Area II, the largest area, had 44 per. cent of its tracts displaying both sets of indicators be- low average. Therefore, nearly 70 per cent of the primary tracts in which most of the Spanish-speakers live are ex- amples of some of the poorest housing in the city. Socio-Economic Conditions In assessing the characteristics of an area, the physical factors are most evident. However, certain less tangible factors also contribute to its total morphology and they also must be considered. The remainder of this chapter will investigate those social and economic charac- teristics seen to be most important in influencing the shaping of the region under consideration. Economic conditions In assessing the general economic conditions of the census tracts in the study area, an approach similar to that used in analyzing the housing conditions was fol- lowed. This time, however, four categories were selected from the census data as indicators. They were median family income, percentage of families with income under $3,000 annually, percentage of families with income above SIC 20. uh a: mi 130 $10,000 annually and percentage of male white collar workers. The graph on page 121 indicates that in 130 of 208 reporting tracts (63%) in the study area the number of white collar workers was below average for their community areas. This appears as a direct reflection of the Mexican and Puerto Rican job skills profile which showed the vast majority of workers to be in the "blue collar" capacities. The family income column on the graph further in- dicates that a majority of the tracts fall below average in annual income. This is compatible with the above para- graph which suggests that poorer job skills usually mean lower income. It also suggests that unemployment and under- employment is high among this group as it is with Black Americans. The two remaining economic categories complement each other. It appears logical that if most census tracts have above average numbers of families earning less than $3,000 annually then there will be few having above aver- age numbers of families earning above $10,000 annually. The graph confirms this. However, it was decided to in- vestigate income levels more closely. Since $3,000 annual income was judged as the official poverty level, this cat Th be IO th at 131 category was selected for the standard deviation test. This test revealed that while only 105 tracts (52%) fell below average in their community areas, 35 tracts were more than one standard deviation below the average. Fur- thermore these 35 tracts in the study area were one half of all the tracts in the community areas involved which were more than one standard deviation away from the av- erage. While it cannot be determined if it is actually the Spanish-speaking families living in these tracts which make up most of this statistic, it does give further feeling as to the economic condition of the study area. Selected Social Characteristics It has been demonstrated that the Mexican and Puerto Rican population tends to be young and undereducated. The graph demonstrates this to be true. Nearly 60 per cent of the tracts in the study area had greater than average pOpulations under 18 years of age and, conversely, less than average numbers over 65. Also, in the column “average school years com- pleted“ two thirds of the study area tracts were below average for their areas. 132 Summary The pattern of income, age and education closely follows the national profiles of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Given these conditions, it was to be expected that the Spanish-speaking population would inhabit the older, poorer and more crowded housing in the city. If they showed a propensity to accept public housing, at least the physical quality of the dwelling units would improve somewhat. As there were still only very few Latin Americans in public housing in 1970, the analysis of liv- ing conditions in the following chapters will continue to focus upon private housing facilities. The important questions will be, "Were the secondary areas of the study truly transitional?" and ”Has the settlement pattern ex- panded spatially in prOportion to its numerical growth?" and ”Has the general morphology of the settlement pattern improved during the decade of the 1960's?" CHAPTER VII THE 1970 SETTLEMENT PATTERN OF THE SPANISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE IN CHICAGO In 1970, the combined p0pu1ation of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans in the city of Chicago was placed at 175,177, approximately 5.1 per cent of the city's total 1 This is an increase of approximately 93,120 population. over the 1960 figure when the three groups represented about 2.3 per cent of the city's total. The Cuban popula- tion increased to approximately 9,000 or 182 per cent larger than the 1960 estimate. The Puerto Rican population increased by 140 per cent to 78,963 and the Mexican popula- tion increased by 113 per cent to 82,057. The dramatic increase in the Cuban population was due to the large flow of Cubans from cuba to Florida who later re-settled in several other large cities during the 1960's. Chicago has possibly received 10,000 of these 1All population figures in this chapter are from the 0.5. Census of POpulation and Housing, Vol. 1, Chicago, Illinois, 1970. 133 134 refugees since the Castro government came to power. How- ever, the flow has decreased considerably in recent years and the movement to Chicago is probably past its peak.2 Also, any new immigration to the city may be offset by a continuing movement of Cubans to nearby suburbs. There- fore, their numbers may stabilize or decline in the next decade. The Puerto Rican increase was dramatic in that it brought their numbers up nearly to par with the Mexicans. They continued to arrive in great numbers during the 1960's and may continue to do so during the 1970's. However, there has been a decrease in the flow of population from the island to the United States in recent years. Improving economic and social conditions there have decreased the pressure to migrate. Also, possible changes in the islands political affiliation with the United States could place some restriction on their movement into this country. The change in the external pattern does not necessarily mean that Chicago will cease to gain in Puerto Rican population. Many will continue to leave other cities in the United States if they think they can do better here. 2This suggestion from an interview at the cuban Association. 135 The immigration records indicate that the Mexican movement remained constant during the last decade. As more and more of these people change from agricultural to indus- trial occupations, Chicago can expect to receive her share of newcomers. While the census enumerated 82,057, there is reason to believe that there may be as many as 40,000 additional Mexicans in the city illegally.3 While this factor may tend to make density evaluations invalid, these illegal residents are mostly living within the present Mexi- can settlement pattern and therefore spatial evaluations should remain quite accurate. Most importantly, this high percentage of increase of Spanish-speaking people is greater than that of any other group including the Blacks. A greater understanding of their presence in the city has become doubly important. In analyzing the settlement pattern of this larger population four questions arise. First, has the new popu- lation settled approximately in the same location as the old thereby adding to the density of the old primary pat- tern? Second, was the secondary pattern of 1960 truly 3This was suggested by Mr. Germain, director of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization in Chicago. 136 transitional and have these areas grown into denser areas of Spanish-speaking pOpulations? Third, have any of the areas of the original pattern been vacated or experienced a decline of Spanish-speaking residents? Fourth, has there been a move toward more homogeneity or more separatism within the "Latin community”? In analyzing the 1970 census data, the tracts were evaluated according to the absolute numerical method used in Chapter Iv with the primary tracts having 100 or more Mexican or Puerto Ricans residents. Primary combined tracts must have pOpulations of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans above 100. Secondary tracts must have populations between 50 and 100 of either or both groups together. An addi- tional factor in the 1970 settlement pattern is the greater accuracy in locating the Cuban residents in the city. In the 1970 census the Cuban population was large enough to be classified as a separate group and their data is available at the census tract level for the first time. Since the earlier part of the study concentrated on the Mexican and Puerto Rican settlement pattern, Figures 7-1 and 7-2 are based upon these two groups as is the analysis of the first part of this chapter. The Cuban pattern will then be defined and discussed relative to the analysis of the first two. 137 Area I: The Near North The first conclusions gained from a glance at the map in Figure 7-1 is the increase in the size of the spatial pattern of Area I as compared to that of 1960. The area has expanded in such a way that it might now be more ap- propriately called the Near Northwest. A closer examination revealed that spatially the area has increased from 79 tracts in 1960 to 179 tracts in 1970. The number of primary tracts increased from 48 to 132 and the number of secondary tracts grew from 31 to 47. This makes Area I spatially larger than the other two areas combined. An examination of the population statistics reveals that the number of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans increased dramatically as well. The Mexican population in this area increased from 6,401 to 22,449 and the Puerto Rican popu— lation increased from 14,682 to 66,123. While the Mexicans increased by 250 per cent, the Puerto Ricans increased by 350 per cent resulting in some important proportional changes. In 1960, 14 per cent of Chicago's total Mexican population lived in Area I. In 1970, 25.3 per cent of the city's Mexicans resided in the expanded area. The Puerto Ricans increased similarly but more dramatically. In 1960, 45 per cent of the total Puerto 138 “a E ”Illll use m m 2 I : [“3”th III a {n «:3: fl ‘ ea :2 . 0‘ mm; lllii 3:3:Ir’ 293”“ 3...;1 \ 3! .,I lg: II km h23I3III IIIhrIII =I: III-33. “a". ‘30, IIII :0 I 3.2:: ”“3“ e: 'O0.0'O'O'O.. v’ee :.:‘ .0.:.:.:.:.:. O O. 0. . . "3" .o ”:3: «II :zflellII I... IIIII 30520205202026. I ‘ eeeeee‘; ‘ ,2.:.eeeee . STUDY AREA g 3;, l970 ’ NEXICAN PRIMARY AREA 3 PUERTO RICAN PRINARY AREA W COMBINED PRIMARY AREA @ ASSOCIATED SECONDARY AREA IIIIIIIIIII O 1 l—_l.._l miles N Figure 7-1. Study Area Census Tracts: 1970 139 Rican population was settled in the Near North. In 1970 this percentage grew to 83.7. This indicates that nearly all of the city's Puerto Ricans now live in Area I, greatly increasing their nucleation. This much larger pOpulation has had an effect on the internal organization of the area. (Figure 7-2) Most important has been the new orientation of the study area's primary tracts. In 1960, there were five independent pri- mary Mexican tracts and 31 independent primary Puerto Rican tracts. These numbers increased to 15 and 53 re- spectively: a total increase in numbers of tracts of ap- proximately 89 per cent. The combined primary tracts (Mexican and Puerto Rican) increased from 12 to 64 an in- crease of 433 per cent. At the same time, the population in the combined primary tracts increased by 870 per cent while the total population of the area increased by only 320 per cent. This indicates that a much higher propor- tion of the two groups are now co-inhabiting more tracts than before. However, due to the much greater numbers of Puerto Ricans and their distribution relative to the Mexi- cans, the Puerto Ricans numerically dominate all but 11 of the 64 combined tracts. Eight of those 11 Mexican dom- inated tracts are located on the periphery of the pattern 140 AREA I-NEAR NORTH STUDY AREA I970 MEXICAN PRIMARY AREA MEXICAN SECONDARY AREA gum PUERTO RICAN PRINARY AREA PUERTO RICAN SECONDARY AREAm COIDINED PRINARY AREA fig COIDINED SECONDARY AREA Figure “(-2. Near North Study Area: 1970 141 as are all but two of the Mexican independent primary tracts. The Mexican secondary tracts in Area I fare little better. Most of the independent tracts are located along the periphery or even probe into adjacent non-Latin areas. In those tracts in which they are found in association with Puerto Ricans, they are usually badly outnumbered. To aid in understanding this spatial growth and change, Figure 7-3 was constructed. A further indication of the Puerto Rican strength and density is seen in the following figures. The Puerto Ricans averaged 748 persons per primary tract while the Mexicans averaged 235. Thirty-one of the Puerto Rican tracts have over 500 Puerto Rican residents and nine of those have over 1,000. The Mexicans have only four tracts over 500 and three of those are dominated by greater num- bers of Puerto Ricans. A final indication of greater Puerto Rican nuclea- tion lies in the independent secondary tracts. The Puerto Ricans with their much larger population have only 15 such tracts while the Mexicans have 20 independent secondary tracts. The dramatic growth of Latin American population E a 33:: “slim @232. B 5mm... 2 _ ME IIIIH _ M H {Ellll {III i ’1] Ins? \ _§ .2." I; 5 §=IIIIIII:::IIIII::I III-s III :4. -°: llll’ulllul .. ...:...1.;.IIII' .2 .I. 'u iI: |||I|l|l:; I= :‘51 AREAS OF SPANISH SPEAKING POPULATION GROWTH :§:;: BETWEEN I960-I97O MEXICAN PRIMARY AREA MEXICAN SECONDARY AREA PUERTO RICAN PRIMARY AREA PUERTO RICAN SECONDARY AREA COMBINED PRIMARY AREA COMBINED SECONDARY AREA i Q E g m llIIIlI ‘ Figure 7-3. Areas of Spanish-speaking Population Growth Between 1960-1970 143 in the area may also be seen in the landscape. Scattered throughout the area are advertising signs in Spanish, some "tacorias" and other stores catering to the needs of the Spanish-speaking residents. There are Spanish language books and periodicals available and five movie theaters feature films in that language. There does not appear to be a large section of this type of activity, rather a few stores appear mixed in with other businesses. While most of the interest in Area I has been in growth, there has been a small area of decline as well. Figure 7-4 shows eight tracts, three primary and five secondary, in an old area of the city just north of the Chicago River in which the Spanish-speaking pOpulation drapped below the 50 needed to be considered as part of the study area. The census shows that seven of these tracts experienced a general loss of papulation totaling 7,130 since 1960. Field investigation revealed that many older buildings have been torn down and replaced by higher cost housing or non-residential landuses. The new housing is too expensive for low income families and competition for the remaining housing has forced many to leave these tracts in search of quarters elsewhere. Therefore, while Area I has experienced dramatic 1M IEII u E 5:}:IIIHIIIIIIIHHIIHHHHIH IIIl IIH :-_: :’t°o°o.-°;°;.j a i :7; AREAS VACATED av I m :5 SPANISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE BETWEEN l960-I970 . E IIHH’;';°. IIHIHHHHII MEXICAN PRIMARY AREA MEXICAN SECONDARY AREA PUERTO RICAN PRIMARY AREA W PUERTO RICAN m OECONDARY AREA COMBINED PRIMARY AREA @ consume 0 1 2 SECONDARY AREA L—L-d miles Figure 7-4. Areas Vacated by Spanish- Speaking PeOple Between 1960-1970 144 growth in the numbers of its Spanish-Speaking pOpulation, many of the earlier characteristics of the settlement pat- tern have remained the same. The Puerto Ricans continue to show greater nucleation concentrating their numbers in a more compact high density pattern closer to the center of the city. The Mexicans although increasing in numbers con- tinue to be less consolidated, scattered more around the periphery of the pattern. Although there is much more co- habitation of tracts, the Puerto Rican concentration con- tinues to overshadow the Mexicans in most of the combined tracts. The proportionally greater increase in primary tracts of all types compared to the growth of the secondary tracts further indicates a tightening of the overall set- tlement pattern. The Cuban influence in Area I will be examined later. Area II: The Central West The most obvious changes in the 1970 settlement pattern of Area II when compared to the pattern of 1960 are the areas of decline and shift. By 1970, the pattern of settlement had shrunk from 106 tracts to 101. ‘While the Spanish-Speaking population had increased from 36,352 to 50,083, that increase amounts to only 37.7 per cent whereas the over- all growth of Puerto Rican and Mexican pOpulations in the 145 city was 109 per cent. The Mexican population dominated Area II in 1960 and increased their numbers by 77.6 per cent which nearly equals their city wide growth over the ten year period. However, the Mexican population in Area II in 1970 only equals 51.7 per cent of the city total as com- pared to 53.5 per cent in 1960. More importantly, the Puerto Ricans experienced a gross loss in the area of nearly 40 per cent, declining from 12,418 in 1960 to 7,571 in 1970. This 1970 figure represents only 9.5 per cent of the city's Puerto Rican pepulation compared to 38.5 per cent in 1960. This de- cline helps explain part of the Spatial and numerical growth in Area I. It is probable that many of the former 5,000 Puerto Rican residents of Area II moved a few blocks north into the expanding Area I, adding to the nucleation there. A look at Figure 7-4 demonstrates the Spatial im- pact of this decline and shift of population. A complete line of 35 1960 tracts, 23 primary and 12 secondary, ex- tending along the northern border of Area II tOgether with nine more just to the south are no longer part of the Spanish-speaking settlement pattern. This has created a more distinct division between Areas I and II since not 146 even a secondary tract connects the two in 1970. The eastern half of this line of vacated tracts experienced a general decline in population brought on in part by the demolition of some of the old housing units. Some land was cleared for construction of the University of Illinois Circle Campus and some for the expansion of hospitals and other governmental facilities. Other areas have been cleared awaiting new development some of which was to be low and middle income housing.4 In the past, however, this type of public housing has been shunned by the Latin Americans and might not attract them in the future. The larger western half of this tier of tracts has experienced a dramatic inflow of Black residents. It ap- pears that when Black population pressure became too great, especially in the competition for low cost private housing, the Spanish-speaking people moved out just as the “Anglo" residents had been doing earlier. Therefore, this large area, which had been a stronghold of Puerto Rican settle- ment in 1960, has virtually disappeared. L 4There is at present some diSpute as to where future public housing is to be develOped. Court orders are trying to break up the ghetto by diapersing public housing. 147 Those Puerto Ricans who did not move north into Area I appear to have moved a few blocks south and west to form a new line of combined tracts in an area which had been mostly Mexican in 1960. Only one Puerto Rican inde- pendent primary tract remains. It is associated with an “island“ of 13 predominantly Mexican tracts which have be- come almost isolated from the main body of Latin Americans farther south near the Sanitary and Ship Canal. If Black encroachment and the demolition of low cost housing con- tinues, this section may be devoid of Latin Americans by the 1980 census. Since both Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have left this area, there was no expansion into the secondary tracts to the west and north of the 1960 primary pattern. In- stead, all but one of these secondary tracts disappeared and became predominantly Black along with the strong pri- mary tracts. The strongest area of Spanish-speaking settlement in the Central West now centers around a traditional, older Mexican area just north of the canal. (See Figure 7-5) This is the area now combined with most of the Puerto Ricans who did not leave Area II. For several blocks in the center of this section, Mexican businesses abound. 148 ISTO AREA II - CENTRAL WEST STUDY AREA II II 1IIIIHI|||H| III 149 Restaurants, bakeries, grocery stores, pharmacies and a variety of Mexican owned and Operated businesses have been here for many years catering to the Latin Americans. Also, two of the four Spanish language movie theaters of Area II are located there. While the area along the northern margin of the 1960 pattern has disappeared, there has been Spatial growth as well. The secondary tracts of the 1960 pattern to the west and just north of the canal have all become primary tracts along with nine additional tracts which had few if any Latin American residents in 1960. Also, there has been considerable spatial growth south of the canal. While two of the 1960 secondary tracts fell below the requirements to be included in the study area, eight others grew to become primary Mexican tracts. Also, seven new Mexican primary and nine secondary tracts have appeared since 1960. An unusual pattern of Puerto Ricans has appeared in the southern part of Area II. Four independent primary, one independent secondary and three combined tracts have appeared since 1960. From a locational point of view there appears to be no particular advantage in this area for the Puerto Ricans. There is a variety of industrial and 150 commercial establishments in the area but they had been ignored by the Puerto Ricans up to now. Perhaps this is an indication that some Puerto Ricans are changing their job preferences as new opportunities are Opening to them. Whether they stay and grow strong and maintain their iden- tity or become absorbed by additional Mexican growth will be of interest in coming years. The growth in the southern part of Area II centers on New City. This Mexican community has been in existence for many years and a sizable business district catering to Latins is readily identifiable. This commercial area has expanded in recent years in answer to the growing Spanish- speaking population. Area II, with a much smaller Latin American population has succeeded in deve10ping two spec- ialized commercial districts, while Area I, with its much larger, but predominantly Puerto Rican population, had de- veloped no comparable commercial centers by 1970. Area III: The Far South In 1960, Area III was the smallest, most loosely consolidated of the three. It was farthest from the Loop and had only limited contact with it via an incomplete public transportation line. The southern portion was al- most an independent sattellite and much of the population 151 turned to their own area for jobs, services and other needs. Much of the Mexican population, the dominant Latin group, rarely if ever visited the LOOp. The area has shown a curious combination of the trends found in the other two areas. There are both in- creases and decreases in tracts and numbers as well as overall re-orientation of the Spanish-speaking settlement pattern there. Figure 7-6. First, the total number of tracts increased from 27 to 39 in the past ten years. Also the entire Spanish— speaking population increased by 37.2 per cent. This fig— ure is misleading in that it was the Mexicans who increased (54.4 per cent) while the Puerto Ricans showed another gross loss shrinking their numbers to only 2,188. These figures account for 14.5 per cent of the city's total Mexican pep- ulation, a decrease of 2.7 per cent since 1960. The de- creased Puerto Rican pepulation represents only 2.7 per cent of their city-wide total, a decrease of 5.2 per cent. The Mexicans now account for approximately 85 per cent of the Latin American population in the area which is just the reverse of the situation in the much larger Area I where the Puerto Ricans dominate. A look at Figures 7-4 and 4—2 quickly confirms 152 III II I III I‘M I II, | I III I III I. ”III a % (fled >¢¢azoouo 008.0800 ‘u :1 >¢¢¢¢OIOOHQ 84°.qu ¢U¢¢ #1185; Ideal. Ohm. (my: >095 Ikaom «2... H