Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Pilsen is a good area - so I'm torn because gentrification means it will lose its character which is NOT what I want and many others don't want. On the other hand, I'm for the advancement of the community. if Pilsen doesn't want gentrifiers, then they need to make sure their community is advancing with how they want it, otherwise it becomes an easy target for gentrification. If the prices there rise, it can become less of a target usually, but if prices stay the same or even go down for property, then they aren't doing themselves any favors.
I'd much rather have some other parts of town gentrify long before Pilsen. I wish EGP could, for example.
|
I recognize that this is a concern many people have, but I guess it doesn't bother me as much because it has been happening in cities throughout human history. Change is the norm.
Besides, at least Chicago has ample amounts of available affordable housing supply for people who end up moving out of Pilsen.
But what's the practical solution? If you love Pilsen's historic building stock, gentrification is the only way to see it preserved. How else is anybody going to realize the return on the capital investment of fixing it up and bringing it back up to Chicago's ridiculous building code requirements?
I'm fine with affordable housing, but have you guys walked through some of Pilsen's buildings? They look pretty on the outside but are in pretty damn rough shape on the interior. You can tear it all down and build drab, cinder-block one story boxes with plastic plumbing, all while preserving the existing community. Or, you can gut rehab, fix leaning floors, put in new copper plumbing and 1.5" water service (which costs $17,000) because the city forces you to do so, repair the falling brickwork, etc etc etc and actually have a chance to KEEP the historic Chicago architecture that's there. But then rents have to go up.
Which one do you want? You can't have both, so you might as well come to terms with gentrification.