" Near West Side/United Center-too dangerous?" (Chicago, Cicero: condo, homes)

[Lookout Kid]

It takes a pretty large density of middle to upper-middle class housing to bring new higher-end restaurants and retail to an area. In urban planning school we always talked about how commercial revitalization lags housing revitalization by several years. Garfield Park has a long way to go before new commercial districts are feasible, unless they are things like big box retail that would draw residents from other neighborhoods via automobiles. And this probably isn't what most EGP boosters have in mind.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Famous last words! Don't hold your breath for that to happen. People have been saying that in Uptown for decades now...

Nah that would be Humboldt Park for about 30 years. But about 20 for uptown.

[Love East Garfield Park]

I have lived in East Garfield Park since 2005, I love my condo and my neighbors. No, the area has not gentrified as quickly as I would hoped, but my condo is beautiful, affordable, close to downtown and has excellent views. So I can wait it out quite nicely.

Just because a neighborhood is not for you does not make it "bad" or "dangerous". I am female and have not had one incident in 3 years.

If you don't live in a particular neighborhood, stop speaking as though you do. Personally I think Wrigelyville is full of disorderly drunks, would not live their if paid to do so. But apparently this is a "hot" area for some.

Live and let live and to each his own.

[Johnny Northside]

Originally Posted by Love East Garfield Park

If you don't live in a particular neighborhood, stop speaking as though you do. Personally I think Wrigelyville is full of disorderly drunks ...

I love how you take your own advice so quickly after delivering it.

[Humboldt1]

Your area has seen more price depreciation in Chicago than any other area I have seen. What did you pay for your condo in 2005? What is it worth now?

I know all about the areas around California and Madison and have looked at numerous properties in that area. I prefer over by United Center to the east and have seen big price drops there as well. Personally, I prefer to stay north of grand west of Ashland.

So many foreclosures and shortsales going on in that area. I almost bought a place there on Walnut near Sacramento in early 2006. I am glad I did not. Similar properties on that block are now selling for $200M (K to some of you folks). That property was listed 4/06 for $310M.

Humboldt Park hasn't exactly gone up in value over the past year but has not seen the dramatic price reductions of its neighbor to the north (Logan) or neighbor to the south (West and East Garfield Park).

I am not a fan of Wrigleyville because of the whole Cubs scene and lots of bars and loud young people and lack of parking but it is certainly a better area than East Garfield Park is or will be for at least the next 10 years.

[Drover]

You know, I'm sick of people telling me I'm not allowed to formulate an opinion about some place unless I actually live there. I have senses which give me perception and I know where to access resources that will give me information about any given place. I don't have to live in Minnesota to know it's cold in winter. I don't have to live in New York to know it's big, dense and sits on an ocean. I don't have to live next to an expressway to know it's noisy and I don't have to live next to a landfill to know that it smells like ass.

And I don't have to live in EGP to know that a big chunk of it is run-down and it has one of the higher crime rates in the city. If you can deal with that, hey, go ahead and move there. No skin off my nose. But I don't have to live there to share my perceptions on these boards. That's what they're here for.

Not to mention such an asinine insistence creates an illogical conundrum wherein nobody should bother researching any place before moving there because they can't actually form an opinion until they physically live there.

[Humboldt1]

Drover,

You are going to make an excellent attorney

[chet everett]

I mean if somebody said they have kinky hair and got a racist vibe sitting the Park Ridge public library or something it is a heckuva lot less reliable than saying "the crime stats in area X are high, the income data is low, prices are eroding more quickly than other areas, and there are nothing but boarded up store fronts" -- BTW, just to be clear NOT all these things apply to ANY neighborhood discussed in this thread.

My point is any kind of data that has some numbers/examples behind it is EXACTLY why the city-data site and forums are useful. If you live in the area in question that is nice, but rather than just saying "no incidents in X years" how about at least saying what cross streets you are nearest to and whether you kind of building you live in. I personally know people that refuse to live in a building without a modern buzzer system or garden apartments because it is just too easy for a thief or worse to be in the building. I don't care how good the "community policing" is if there is somebody lurking in your apartment you going to have some real problems...

Originally Posted by Drover

You know, I'm sick of people telling me I'm not allowed to formulate an opinion about some place unless I actually live there. I have senses which give me perception and I know where to access resources that will give me information about any given place. I don't have to live in Minnesota to know it's cold in winter. I don't have to live in New York to know it's big, dense and sits on an ocean. I don't have to live next to an expressway to know it's noisy and I don't have to live next to a landfill to know that it smells like ass.

And I don't have to live in EGP to know that a big chunk of it is run-down and it has one of the higher crime rates in the city. If you can deal with that, hey, go ahead and move there. No skin off my nose. But I don't have to live there to share my perceptions on these boards. That's what they're here for.

Not to mention such an asinine insistence creates an illogical conundrum wherein nobody should bother researching any place before moving there because they can't actually form an opinion until they physically live there.

[mr aztec]

My wife and I took a drive through garfield park (west and east) and pilsen (west and east) this Saturday afternoon. Here are my observations:

West Garfield Park = deserves to be on the top 5 most dangerous

East Garfiled Park = Mixed feelings here. I see brand new places going up and a block over it looks like boyz 'n da hood. Of all the places in the city, this place has soooo much potential. It could be gold cost west with all the 3 flats and SFHomes. If I move in a couple of years, I would consider, but still a bit too up and coming for me. That said, once everyone considers a place "up and coming" the ship has usually sailed. For instance, we looked at condos in Uptown in summer of '06 when it was "on the rise." We were stupified to see the prices then maybe a 15% discount compared to lakeview (with a bit more space too). I need a bigger cut than that to take that real estate risk. OK, moving on....

West Pilsen: I see small chance of change here in the next 10 years. 20? Maybe. But East Pilsen has to complete its gentrification process first, and that alone will take another 10 years. Lets face it, race aside, the gentrification of Pilsen will take higher income families moving in... And after my drive to West Pilsen, that won't happen anytime soon.

East Pilson: I might have this confused with Little Villiage (Halsed and Cermack?). Anyways, I could see myself there in a year or two, but by then I will have missed the boat. I was impressed. That said, I figure there will always be "up and coming" neighborhoods in Chicago so you can never really miss the boat. The question is--are you willing to be the pioneer and stick it out? Just my 2cents.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by mr aztec

My wife and I took a drive through garfield park (west and east) and pilsen (west and east) this Saturday afternoon. Here are my observations:

West Garfield Park = deserves to be on the top 5 most dangerous

East Garfiled Park = Mixed feelings here. I see brand new places going up and a block over it looks like boyz 'n da hood. Of all the places in the city, this place has soooo much potential. It could be gold cost west with all the 3 flats and SFHomes. If I move in a couple of years, I would consider, but still a bit too up and coming for me. That said, once everyone considers a place "up and coming" the ship has usually sailed. For instance, we looked at condos in Uptown in summer of '06 when it was "on the rise." We were stupified to see the prices then maybe a 15% discount compared to lakeview (with a bit more space too). I need a bigger cut than that to take that real estate risk. OK, moving on....

West Pilsen: I see small chance of change here in the next 10 years. 20? Maybe. But East Pilsen has to complete its gentrification process first, and that alone will take another 10 years. Lets face it, race aside, the gentrification of Pilsen will take higher income families moving in... And after my drive to West Pilsen, that won't happen anytime soon.

East Pilson: I might have this confused with Little Villiage (Halsed and Cermack?). Anyways, I could see myself there in a year or two, but by then I will have missed the boat. I was impressed. That said, I figure there will always be "up and coming" neighborhoods in Chicago so you can never really miss the boat. The question is--are you willing to be the pioneer and stick it out? Just my 2cents.

As I look into my crystal ball, I see Pilsen completing gentrification in 20 years and East Garfield Park languishing as is for the next 30.