When I first saw the graffiti, it was actually my mom who brought up the idea. She was shocked to see it; in her 18 years of living here it has never shown up. This got me thinking to what has changed in Winnetka that would conclude to this happening. After a bit of research I found that there were 20,000 more calls about graffiti in 2013 than 2012 in the city of Chicago. 2013 received 100,000 calls asking for the removal of the "art". I finally decided that maybe nothing has changed in Winnetka, it was just random.
If those 100,000 calls don't surprise you, maybe the $6.5 million dollars on graffiti removal in Chicago will. If we are spending $6.5 million dollars annually, why do some neighborhoods continue to have it around every corner, and on nearly every building? When I go to the city, or drive through other neighborhoods like evanston, graffiti is nearly everywhere. So much that the addition of a few more drawings would hardly be noticeable among the rest. You might see why the appearance of a bit of graffiti in the prestine streets of Winnetka came as a shock.
First there is the amount that a specific neighborhood is willing to spend on the removal. Where would they rather put $6.5 million dollars annually, towards better schools and teachers or towards the appearance of the area? This is otherwise known as opportunity costs. In addition to the problem of opportunity costs, there is also the factor of what the people value. Typically, I would say that upperclass people care more about appearance, therefor they don't want to look out their windows and see the sometimes-but rarely, artistic "art".
The last factor is the amount of time that people have on their hands. The northshore has many stay at home parents who have time to call up the village and complain about the graffiti. In lowerclass neighborhoods, people might just be too busy to call. It may not even cross their minds. While this is a bit of a generalization, because of course there are many families in the northshore with two working parents, it does come in to play.
First there is the amount that a specific neighborhood is willing to spend on the removal. Where would they rather put $6.5 million dollars annually, towards better schools and teachers or towards the appearance of the area? This is otherwise known as opportunity costs. In addition to the problem of opportunity costs, there is also the factor of what the people value. Typically, I would say that upperclass people care more about appearance, therefor they don't want to look out their windows and see the sometimes-but rarely, artistic "art".
The last factor is the amount of time that people have on their hands. The northshore has many stay at home parents who have time to call up the village and complain about the graffiti. In lowerclass neighborhoods, people might just be too busy to call. It may not even cross their minds. While this is a bit of a generalization, because of course there are many families in the northshore with two working parents, it does come in to play.
What sort of neighborhood stands for graffiti to be left up and more importantly, for how long? I didn't even get the chance to take a photo of the graffiti before it was taken down. It was up for three weeks maximum before it disappeared and the streets (actually street, there was only one small appearance) of Winnetka were back to their prestine state.
