View Single Post
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2019, 1:07 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
My understanding is Chicago is pretty unique in terms of major U.S. cities in that it effectively allows aldermen "pocket vetoes" over any development in their district. This is a horrible system, because it creates all kinds of incentives for developers to provide kickbacks to particular aldermen if they want a particular project to go forward.

In general however, I don't think anti-gentrification battles can be seen in the same light as more typical NIMBYism.

First, low-income neighborhoods tend to be pro-development up to a certain point. No one really wants to see abandoned homes and vacant lots peppering the neighborhoods forever. And to the degree to which most cities build "missing middle" housing at all (modern-day two-flats/three-flats and the like) they tend to be heavily concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods, where there isn't a strong demand for SFH-only zones.

Second, the initial phases of gentrification tend to lower density rather than raising it. A neighborhood must be fairly far along the gentrification process before market-rate infill is warranted in most of the country. Thus in the early stages you're most likely to see low-income families displaced from housing units, and then replaced by a smaller household unit of gentrifiers (say a single person or a childless couple). Some people will buy abandoned houses and fix them up with "sweat equity" which adds units, but others will also buy small 2/3 unit buildings and convert them back into SFH, so it largely cancels out. As a result, the population of the neighborhood will continue to shrink through gentrification, until such time as the market can bear filling in the vacant lots, or even teardown and replacement with whatever the maximum is allowed by zoning.
Reply With Quote