|
^ It's not just hipsters bitching and moaning.
It's the low income people who are mad at people who actually make money, and are jealous that such people are gentrifying "their" neighborhood. Same old shit, different neighborhood. |
^Pathetic. I'll always remember the moment I found out what Gentrification meant. My brain exploded and mouth joined in with a collective what.the.f*ck? So you mean to tell me an increase in hard-working, successful, well-rounded people followed by an influx of various businesses to a shoddy neighborhood can be viewed as a bad thing? Yougottabekiddingme.
|
Quote:
|
Yes, but that's called change and change is what happens in cities. Change is also what creates these ethnic enclaves to begin with. The Mexicans didn't build Little Village or Pilsen, the Puerto Ricans didn't build Humboldt Park. They moved in after the previous ethic groups dispersed or moved out.
Cities require periodic gentrification to function. You can't have vast stagnant areas of impoverished minorities or the city just goes to crap. Look at the South Side, it hasn't been gentrified since it was built and is looking more than a little worse for wear. The African American block is an obvious exception to this immigration rule, but I have no worry for the hispanic communities or Chinese community, for example, when it comes to gentrification. New immigrant groups will always set about building a vibrant community no matter where they are pushed to. There are more than enough bombed out, impoverished, disrepaired, areas in this city that the next wave of immigrants can move to and fix up. In fact, we need immigrant groups to act as a stabilizing force for such areas. I have no doubt that, should an area such as Pilsen be completely gentrified, the current residents will simply move a few stops down the Pink line and start the gentrification process again themselves. We need that wave action. It is good for the city. |
Gentrification does not have to mean pushing the poor out of a neighborhood. It's frustrating that everyone seems to be totally satisfied for how our neighborhoods gentrify today even though that gentrification typically makes our hoods less dense and less vibrant. We need to find the model for keeping neighborhoods intact while gentrifying them. Seattle is trying new ways, one of which requires affordable housing to be built within the same neighborhood for which the development is that contributed the housing credit funds. So if you build a tower in Lakeview and contribute funds rather than actual affordable units, those funds have to be built in Lakeview. Thus keeping a good balance of affordable units across the city and maybe, hopefully, letting longtime residents continue to dwell in their neighborhood.
We must think of better ways to make sure our cities include people from all backgrounds. |
Well a few stops down the pink line is Little Village an already Mexican enclave ;) But yea, the immigrants could always go to Lawndale or Garfield Park. I'd welcome them fixing up those areas. I hope that Garfield Park gets gentrified since that park and the conservatory are so amazing. Oh, to be able to have a greystone house across from Garfield Park, and have it be a safe area.
Yea, that highrise on Milwaukee looks awesome! That needs to be built!!! |
No one forced these immigrants to come to Chicago. Why should they get government subsidized housing from the taxes of people that work hard, and pay taxes. At least we should ban them sending the money they make here back to their other countries. They should have to spend it here if they are going to take advantage of our great economy.
|
Quote:
Who cares that SROs and mental health clinics are closed as long as we get our cocktail bars, gourmet mac and cheese, and luxury micro apartments, right? Im not saying gentrification is bad necessarily. Im not saying its good either. Its simply a force that exists in our imperfect world. But a little empathy towards the poor and marginalized, who inevitably stand the most to lose in any economic upheaval, wouldnt hurt. Having the social fabric of a neighborhood, which you've known for your entire life, violently ripped away from you can be an extremely confusing, personal, and hurtful thing. Especially when it feels like the newcomers, who never gave a sh*t about you or your neighborhood during the worst of times, are suddenly co-opting the culture and piggybacking on years of grassroots hard work now that its suddenly trendy to be there. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
...repost
|
the problem with this forum is it is a echo chamber. a lot of people of the same sort of economic advantages patting each other on the back and cheer-leading the same causes, which they stand to gain from in one way or another.
im not anti-development by any stretch. but there are a lot of perspectives that are sorely lacking a mouthpiece, not just here but in the broader narrative. theres a pervasive attitude of "i got mine, the outcomes of anyone else is irrelevant" |
Quote:
|
^100%.
Quote:
Might as well share some On Topic news. KINGS at New City is slated for a September opening, as is Uniqlo on Michigan Ave. FWIW, here are the drawings. It's supposed to be pretty nice inside. https://shawmut.sharefile.com/d/scc43005131d49af8 |
Quote:
I noticed this was one of the projects that had money stripped away by Rauners budget, but I was also under the impression this was supposed to pretty much be wrapped up this spring. (unless there was another renovation project underway there) |
Fern room was closed, as was one side of the palm tree room, with various signs up for roof improvements.
|
Quote:
I'll go on the record as saying that I completely support gentrification - I see it as a necessary part of the life cycle of cities. However, I also readily acknowledge that it does create problems and/or challenges to existing residents who are often least able to deal with those problems without significant disruption to their lives. How, as a city (and society at large) deals with those challenges can have lasting impacts on the long-term health of a city and a culture. In the bigger picture, having strong social safety nets actually helps protect the free market despite the higher tax cost because it mitigates and/or prevents a negative cascade of impacts from hurting people unintentionally impacted by economic swings that happen faster than generational timeframes. That's where the biggest problems happen, when economic changes happen faster than employment life timeframes. Gentrification isn't the only example - automation in the automobile industry and in the steel industry are other examples. You had strong middle classes built on industries that changed enormously in a short period of time, creating a pool of displaced workers larger than could be retrained and repurposed in a timeframe that didn't cause individuals a lot of hardship. Simply saying that individuals make choices and need to be aware of the winds of economic change isn't good for the long-term health of a culture because it causes a reduction in risk and exacerbates the impact of failure for those who do takes risks. Taking risk is a necessary part of economics, but allowing individuals and families to suffer catastrophic consequences to rational risks gone bad doesn't benefit anyone. It obviously hurts the individuals, but it also means that those individuals will be less able to fully contribute to the economy because they'll be reduced to a survival mode that can be tough to break free of. It's in everyone's best interest to have as many people as possible able to contribute their best work as long as possible. Things like current-occupant rent control and property tax increase limits can be part of the solution. I think where rent control goes wrong is when it's permanent, and when the allowed rate of increase is irrationally low - something like allowing rent to increase at twice the rate of inflation and only apply to the current resident of a unit would allow the market to progress in an area while still allowing current residents a more gradual absorption of the change. Having semi-public senior housing in all areas would also help mitigate the impact to people who have lived their entire lives in an area and wish to stay. In that case seniors might still get priced out of their specific home, but would be offered reasonable accommodations at a fixed cost in the area they have spent most of their lives in. The goal can't be to eliminate all negative impacts for existing residents, nor can it be to eliminate all burden for those driving gentrification, and like most negotiation the middle ground should balance benefit and cost across both groups. Seniors might have to move from their apartment to a senior living facility at a reasonable price, but in return they get better public safety and more businesses and services in the area. Gentrification drivers end up either having to work a little harder to find a place that can really pop in value, or they can live with a slightly lower rate of appreciation, but they will see less political resistance to their influx and some of the original flavor and economic diversity that makes cities interesting will last longer. |
HOLY SHIT NEWS OF THE MONTH,Lend lease and CMK together on south loop river front parcels.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-in-south-loop |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Having said that, I'm not arguing against any positive change in poor and marginally poor neighborhoods. In my original comment, I acknowledged that there are benefits to gentrification. I just think there should be more of a balance between maintaining the character of the neighborhood and accommodating an influx of new residents. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 3:48 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.