CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Arm&Kedzie]

^ Ya thats a good point. I live and work in the area and I have been watching properties get gobbled up and developed heading south from Logan square on California, Sacramento, and Kedzie. While this has been through Puerto Rican and Hispanic neighborhoods primarily i'm starting to see it creep south into the African American neighborhoods especially around Chicago Ave. While the United Center and Ukrainian village are pushing things from the East. It will be interesting if the natural flow of development will hit the racial 'wall' your describing.

[the urban politician]

^ I think his point is that presently, racism isn't the primary factor that is preventing such areas from gentrifying. The primary factor is the current state of their built environment, even though we all know that race issues are exactly how these areas got into such condition

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think his point is that presently, racism isn't the primary factor that is preventing such areas from gentrifying. The primary factor is the current state of their built environment, even though we all know that race issues are exactly how these areas got into such condition

Which varies from block-to-block. So isn't part of the solution getting a developer to start a critical mass in rebuilding the environment? There was already a ton of infill constructed in pockets of EGP during the 00's. Unfortunately residential rehabs are still just here and there, while new construction has lagged during this cycle. Not sure why when rents have definitely gone up. Developments like the Pete's Fresh make the area much more livable, even if it's not an ideal design from a walkable urban perspective. Everything else you need is still within a 15 minute drive, train ride, or bike ride -- no worse than living in any suburb plus 10 minutes from the CBD. But I actually prefer that more immigrant populations move in to diversify the 'hood at least in proportion to any white artists and yuppies. Thankfully, it seems to be slowly happening as immigrants get priced out from other areas. I regularly encounter Latinos, Asians, and Eastern Europeans that I don't recall seeing just a few years ago. My biggest hope is actually to simply get a good burrito joint I can walk to and then I'll be all set. The metro area really needs a development green belt until the South and West sides (and inner-ring suburbs) are fully rejuvenated.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

Thankfully, it seems to be slowly happening as immigrants get priced out from other areas. I regularly encounter Latinos, Asians, and Eastern Europeans that I don't recall seeing just a few years ago.

^ Wait a minute, huh?

Is there a palpable influx of immigrants in some of these black areas (?E. Garfield Park, etc)? Which area are you referring to?

Please share. My property investing side wants to know!

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Wait a minute, huh?

Is there a palpable influx of immigrants in some of these black areas (?E. Garfield Park, etc)? Which area are you referring to?

Please share. My property investing side wants to know!

Yes. I don't have any numbers, but in the northeast part of EGP from California to Damen I'm noticing more diversity with each year that passes. I will be excited to see the next Census. If you're interested in property investing in the area please PM me because I'm also interested but unexperienced.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Wait a minute, huh?

Is there a palpable influx of immigrants in some of these black areas (?E. Garfield Park, etc)? Which area are you referring to?

Please share. My property investing side wants to know!

A different part of the city, but this blog post does a pretty good job of summing up the growth of Asian-Americans outward, in all directions, from Chinatown. It compares census data from 1990-2000-2010.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think his point is that presently, racism isn't the primary factor that is preventing such areas from gentrifying. The primary factor is the current state of their built environment, even though we all know that race issues are exactly how these areas got into such condition

I disagree. The current built environment is mostly vacant lots and very low land values. Exactly what any developer would be looking for. Except they can't build new units and sell them for a decent price when there are 50 shootings on the street every weekend. The shootings are due to gangs, which are due to the drug trade, which is due to a government created black market. This isn't a problem that economic forces can solve.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I disagree. The current built environment is mostly vacant lots and very low land values. Exactly what any developer would be looking for. Except they can't build new units and sell them for a decent price when there are 50 shootings on the street every weekend. The shootings are due to gangs, which are due to the drug trade, which is due to a government created black market. This isn't a problem that economic forces can solve.

This is empirically not true. Each of the community areas that make up Bronzeville (Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Kenwood) currently have violent crime rates lower than or equivalent to Lakeview, Logan Square, or Near North Side. Even if you narrow it down to homicides, this still holds true. They're not Naperville, but they are very safe by Chicago standards.

Yet... where is the gentrification in those areas? Where is the long line of developers chasing "vacant lots and very low land values"? The low land values themselves reflect the fact that nobody wants to live there, except perhaps the African-Americans who are already part of those communities.

You can explain the lack of demand either through
A) a particular kind of selective racism targeted at African-Americans (but not Latinos), or
B) the fact that African-American neighborhoods are physically and economically devastated

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is empirically not true. Each of the community areas that make up Bronzeville (Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Kenwood) currently have violent crime rates lower than or equivalent to Lakeview, Logan Square, or Near North Side. Even if you narrow it down to homicides, this still holds true. They're not Naperville, but they are very safe by Chicago standards.

Yet... where is the gentrification in those areas? Where is the long line of developers chasing "vacant lots and very low land values"? The low land values themselves reflect the fact that nobody wants to live there, except perhaps the African-Americans who are already part of those communities.

You can explain the lack of demand either through
A) a particular kind of selective racism targeted at African-Americans (but not Latinos), or
B) the fact that African-American neighborhoods are physically and economically devastated

C) Most of the (White) Urban Pioneers/first wave gentrifiers, are not willing to live in 100% Black communities. The exception being areas like Cabrini that have the location and mass exodus going on...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by prelude91

[[You can explain the lack of demand either through]]
[[A) a particular kind of selective racism targeted at African-Americans (but not Latinos), or]]
[[B) the fact that African-American neighborhoods are physically and economically devastated]]

C) Most of the (White) Urban Pioneers/first wave gentrifiers, are not willing to live in 100% Black communities. The exception being areas like Cabrini that have the location and mass exodus going on...

You're describing the symptom, not the problem. Why are urban pioneers unwilling to live in these areas? It's either because they're racist and "100% Black communities" are completely unappealing, or because in Chicago, "100% Black" happens to correlate with "bombed out, no businesses or services". I've already demonstrated that crime rates aren't holding black neighborhoods like Bronzeville or East Garfield back anymore.

You sorta answered the question by mentioning Cabrini. Cabrini itself (Sedgwick to the River/Halsted, Chicago to North) sorta fits the mold of a bombed out Black community, but it's within easy striking distance of healthy, growing areas that are chock-full of shopping and entertainment. Ergo: crazy growth on every parcel of land that isn't controlled by CHA.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is empirically not true. Each of the community areas that make up Bronzeville (Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Kenwood) currently have violent crime rates lower than or equivalent to Lakeview, Logan Square, or Near North Side. Even if you narrow it down to homicides, this still holds true. They're not Naperville, but they are very safe by Chicago standards.

Yet... where is the gentrification in those areas? Where is the long line of developers chasing "vacant lots and very low land values"? The low land values themselves reflect the fact that nobody wants to live there, except perhaps the African-Americans who are already part of those communities.

You can explain the lack of demand either through
A) a particular kind of selective racism targeted at African-Americans (but not Latinos), or
B) the fact that African-American neighborhoods are physically and economically devastated

^ It's got to be B. I realize that there are still plenty of racists out there, but I honestly think that there are a lot of white or Asian millennials who are not racist enough that they would have no problem living in a majority black area provided 1) it is relatively safe and 2) there are plenty of things to walk to such as shops, restaurants, cafes, etc.

Bronzeville, Kenwood, etc have a beautiful housing stock but their commercial corridors are either nonexistent or just totally SUCK.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's got to be B. I realize that there are still plenty of racists out there, but I honestly think that there are a lot of white or Asian millennials who are not racist enough that they would have no problem living in a majority black area provided 1) it is relatively safe and 2) there are plenty of things to walk to such as shops, restaurants, cafes, etc.

Bronzeville, Kenwood, etc have a beautiful housing stock but their commercial corridors are either nonexistent or just totally SUCK.

It's honestly both, but your (b) point is certainly a major reason too IMO. There are many people who simply don't care which area they're in as long as it has some kind of walkability and transit. For the people who are first wave gentrifiers (i.e. hipsters many times), the reality of safety doesn't matter to them nearly as much as someone who only moves to gentrified areas. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that sometimes first wave gentrifiers (i.e. hipsters) love to go to areas with an abundance of non-American food options - which is something areas like East Garfield Park, North Lawndale, West Garfield Park, etc doesn't really have apart from having blocks with too many vacant lots. In that world, being in an area with only Mexican food and only Spanish being spoken in is a lot sexier than an area with a bunch of American food. In all honesty, I'd bet a million dollars you'd see people trying to gentrify an area like Little Village way before an area like Washington Park due to that fact but also the fact that there's an abundance of buildings already.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ It's got to be B. I realize that there are still plenty of racists out there, but I honestly think that there are a lot of white or Asian millennials who are not racist enough that they would have no problem living in a majority black area provided 1) it is relatively safe and 2) there are plenty of things to walk to such as shops, restaurants, cafes, etc.

Bronzeville, Kenwood, etc have a beautiful housing stock but their commercial corridors are either nonexistent or just totally SUCK.

Agree 100%

Would expanded to people of all ages.

[PKDickman]

Businesses are always the key.
Step #1 in the gentrification handbook is "Arrest Decay"
Step 1.a is promote and encourage businesses that attract newcomers to the area.

People don't choose a neighborhood because of the countertops or closet space, they choose it because there is something they want to be near. After all, walkability don't mean shit if there is nothing worth walking to.

Immigrant enclaves create these business organically to support their own culture.

[Via Chicago]

I don't buy the racism argument either. Plenty of African American neighborhoods have seen their values rise in ny. Look at crown heights, bed stuy, etc. The difference is they're largely in tact from a commercial/residential standpoint and still vibrant in their own way. As others have said, while first wavers may worry less about safety if they can get a good price near other attractive options, no one wants to buy a home on a block that looks like it went through wwii. The turnaround time for a neighborhood is much more daunting when that exists. Someone can buy a home in Pilsen and say "well, even if I don't get rich off this its still a place I enjoy spending time". The same can't really be said for the worst hit areas of chicago. East garfield has been touted as the next it place for 30 years. You'd have a better return putting the money in a stock market index fund over the same period. And you wouldn't have to worry about pervasive violent crime and an absensce of basic necessities as part of your daily life either

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Please explain what's so hideous about it. The lack of ground-floor retail? When this got under way, there was no Riverline being planned. No one knew what might eventually go on the Cacciatore site south of River City.

Is there no retail at all on this property? I thought I recalled a listing for small spaces at 837 / 839 S. Wells addresses.

[Mr Downtown]

^One of the causes of the spike in violence is said to be that the big gangs (with fairly stable territories) were dispersed into disparate and often hostile neighborhoods when the old CHA projects were torn down.

Free housing for freeloaders?

I'll be kind. I know it was quite a blow for you when your partner Jacob Marley died. But he may yet visit you, at least in spirit.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ My favorite deal of TUP's was when we kicked all the kiddos out of the orphanage on Christmas TBH.

[the urban politician]

^ Nah. The cause in violence is the low character of the shameless scum who think it's okay to do drive by shootings in the presence of children.

And spare me the Scrooge analogy. Charity is not supposed to last forever. The CHA is eternal charity

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^One of the causes of the spike in violence is said to be that the big gangs (with fairly stable territories) were dispersed into disparate and often hostile neighborhoods when the old CHA projects were torn down.

Maybe part of it, but the "Heroin Highway" is currently one of the major issues and how many gangs are there selling and vying for drug money. Austin alone has over 13% of all city homicides this year (in 2006 at this time, that percentage was half of what it is today). When you add in the Garfield Parks and North Lawndale, it's 27% of all homicides in the city for a population of only about 173,000.Of course you also have West Englewood, Englewood, New City, Auburn Gresham, and Greater Grand Crossing together with a population of about 192,000 which make up about 30% of all city homicides this year. Such a disparity - but of course the media wouldn't pick up on that. They'd love everyone to believe the entire city is burning.

Interestingly enough though, crimes like Assaults are actually down from a decade ago even with this spike in crime. It's homicides that are up a bit to late-ish 90s numbers.