Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pilsen's gentrification stops at Damen, a pretty drastic steep fall if you ask me. Gentrification rarely leapfrogs. Huge reason why Pilsen's gentrification has taken this long is that there are active local grassroots groups that fight any development tooth and nail. In the 90s I knew a guy who's dad owned a warehouse in Pilsen. Alderman and city wouldn't rezone his warehouse so he sold it to a non profit that eventually had it rezoned for affordable housing. Podmajersky who owns pretty much all of Halsten and refuses to sell or develop has also put a huge stop to any development. By all accounts from vocal tenants I've heard they are slumlords. Little Village has had some events la Villapalooza and pop ups, but just like Pilsen they have militant activists who hate almost any type of development. I see them online railing against the proposed bike path dubbed El Paseo. Apparently building a bike path on an abandoned rail line will dispalced thousands of LV residents. They even rallied against a non defunct coffee shop on Cermak because they sold expensive coffee.
It's true that EGP lacks the commercial infrastructure and shopping district that LV, but they also have virtually no real organized groups opposing development. It seems that many residents there are desperate for development and eagerly welcome it, as opposed to LV. Another obstacle to LV gentrification is that it's literally the last neighborhood in the city.
Pilsen's gentrification stops at Damen, a pretty drastic steep fall if you ask me. Gentrification rarely leapfrogs. Huge reason why Pilsen's gentrification has taken this long is that there are active local grassroots groups that fight any development tooth and nail. In the 90s I knew a guy who's dad owned a warehouse in Pilsen. Alderman and city wouldn't rezone his warehouse so he sold it to a non profit that eventually had it rezoned for affordable housing. Podmajersky who owns pretty much all of Halsten and refuses to sell or develop has also put a huge stop to any development. By all accounts from vocal tenants I've heard they are slumlords. Little Village has had some events la Villapalooza and pop ups, but just like Pilsen they have militant activists who hate almost any type of development. I see them online railing against the proposed bike path dubbed El Paseo. Apparently building a bike path on an abandoned rail line will dispalced thousands of LV residents. They even rallied against a non defunct coffee shop on Cermak because they sold expensive coffee.
It's true that EGP lacks the commercial infrastructure and shopping district that LV, but they also have virtually no real organized groups opposing development. It seems that many residents there are desperate for development and eagerly welcome it, as opposed to LV. Another obstacle to LV gentrification is that it's literally the last neighborhood in the city.
this is also true, even in N Lawndale. if a developer wants to ultimately build something there, no one is going to stop it or fight it....or even necessarily notice or particularly care much. the alderman there is very pro development and wants to see positive economic changes. someone like Rodriguez has to much more carefully toe that line. simply look at the "fight" over the discount mall. all that happened was the new owner was like "hey this place needs to be fixed up" and ppl lost their minds. same deal with the Focal Point situation...endless articles about squatters who refused to vacate an abandoned industrial building that was never zoned for residential in the first place. so therefore the development is automatically labeled "controversial" in every piece, because apparently a vocal minority of people oppose a new community hospital and recreation facilities and are going to shout at meetings.
whats frustrating is theres a difference between gentrification and merely stabilizing a neighborhood. there are board ups and abandonment near us. several homes have been torn down. its demoralizing to see that kind of thing happen, esp when people are protesting non-existent gentrification. these homes are old with tons of deferred maintenance. they are 20-30 years behind the rehab cycle thats occurred on the N side, and it shows. these buildings are beginning to reach the point where if action isnt taken, we're going to continue to lose housing stock. and as someone trying to slowly rehab one of these kinds of homes, i can attest that its not easy or cheap or quick.
the coffee shop thing was so incredibly silly, esp since no one blinks an eye at national chains like Dunkin infiltrating the neighborhood and setting up multiple locations and erasing local character. ironically it looks like that old space now has a hipster mexican gallery in it. have yet to see it graffitied over or protests out in front of it.
Last edited by via chicago; 02-17-2022 at 11:36 AM..
whether you call it gentrification or redevelopment is kind of splitting hairs. at the end of the day, if there isnt displacement in woodlawn (which gentrification implies), than thats a net positive for everyone. both the lower income long time renters who should receive the benefits of a better neighborhood, as well as the new homeowners who get a nicer house than they could afford in any other lakeside neighborhood. that said, if you read up on the changes going on down there i dont think this is out of state investors buying these properties at all, certainly not these SFHs/townhomes we're talking about. there is in fact a black professional class in this city (albeit dwindled) that has not traditionally been catered to. hence the exodus over the past 20 years. but those who are staying who have some money and good jobs i think you are seeing begin to recognize that they dont have to go to lakeview to put down roots or to have something "nice"
hyde park has always had a level of stability and wealth. you are simply beginning to see it spill over to the north and south given the prices there. and bronzeville has slowly been seeing those big old King Drive mansions get rehabbed for years.
the difference is the SW side has always been a working class area. theres no old mansions in LV, even the way there are in Logan. theres never been a professional class, or a big name institution. its always been an area for workers. in fact a lot of the nicer big homes that do still exist are north of ogden in N Lawndale. south of ogden is all workers cottages and 3 flats. a few bungalows here and there but not even comparable to cicero in that regard. i would say Mckinley Park/Bridgeport suffer from the same housing issues (at least if youre a SFH buyer as opposed to a renter), but they are much more diverse both racially and economically. i guess my point is, the lack of vacant lots in LV isnt what preventing similar things from going up here. if the market dictates it, it will find a way to make it happen. woodlawn had a reputation similar to N Lawndale not that long ago, but thats very clearly changing. simply drive west to east down 63rd...the changes are undeniable. yes there are big empty parcels, but they can chewed up really really quickly with the kinds of developments that we've already seen along the green line. all it takes is U of C to throw in a charter school like they recently did, and that takes down one big empty block and completely changes the streetscape and the perception people have of the area. to me thats more transformative than Obama.
that said, the mexican community absolutely saved the SW side's ass in the back half of the 20th/early 21st century. if we didnt have strong immigration those communities would have disappeared into nothing. the biggest changes coming down the pipe in this area are actually the Ogden corridor, with several very big Invest S/W developments in the pipeline. it remains to be seen how transformative that will be or whether they will achieve the lofty goals theyre tasked with, but im cautiously optimistic that will begin to create some spillover effects and clean up some really rough patches of abandonment.
Respectfully, it is not splitting hairs. They're two entirely different things. One is a process which occurs naturally and over time by people making the choice to move into an existing area. The area has to be stable enough to allow that to even start. The other one starts from scratch, usually at an already high price point.
I have no data on who is buying these high priced new townhomes in the Obama library area. If you have such data that would be great, please post it. The facts show that Chicago does not have a huge black middle class. Indeed, their average household income is the lowest of the four major demographic groups, $15.5k below that of Hispanics as of 2016.
Home ownership rates in the black communities are low as well. And of course, unless you've been living under a rock, you know that Chicago's black population has decreased to its lowest point in 60 years, hence the fight over the ward map. Nearly 100,000 left in the '10s alone. Data suggests much of the decrease is middle and upper middle class households leaving Chicago, perhaps in part because nearly 80% of the homicide victims in Chicago are black. Historically middle class Chatham has been experiencing some serious problems over the past decade. 30 homicides and 115 wounded in 2021.
Real estate decision should be informed by as many facts as possible. You can't just look at the listing prices on brand new structures erected near a nationally recognized development and say that the neighborhood is now good to go. I mean, you can, but understand the risks!
this is a couple years old but touches on some of the demographics driving these changes
Quote:
Davis, who works in financial services, was born in Arkansas. He got an MBA from Clark Atlanta University and his law degree from the University of Nebraska.
But Chicago — specifically Woodlawn — was where he and his family decided to put down roots.
“I walk my dog around the Museum of Science and Industry, the Japanese garden in Jackson Park, all the beautiful treasures this location affords,” he says. “I have amazing neighbors, all these different connections, this beautiful black culture. We’ve had a great experience here.”
Davis’s story demonstrates the potential for Chicago’s African American community to reverse a long decline and for the city to re-establish itself as one of the leading centers of black America.
It also shows why the conversation about Woodlawn as it prepares for the arrival of the Obama Presidential Center shouldn’t focus solely on affordable housing, important as that is. The real challenge is taking steps to help the community’s black middle class keep growing.
Woodlawn’s revival began long before the 2016 announcement that the Obama center would be built there. Since 2000, almost 1,200 dwellings have been built in the community, census data show. Home values have nearly doubled since 2010. In Davis’s neighborhood in eastern Woodlawn, 35% of black residents 25 or older have college degrees — higher than the national average.
“I see more plans for new housing and commercial investment in Woodlawn than I’ve ever seen working in the neighborhood for over 20 years,” says developer Benjamin Van Horne, who has built 83 single-family homes, two-flats, townhouses and condos primarily in Woodlawn.
Two of his houses recently sold for around $750,000, a record for the area.
But some Woodlawn residents say that, despite progress, the community has far to go.
“The first week we moved in in 2012, there was a shooting in front of our house,” says Reggie Weaver, a securities trader. “There was so much gunfire, our kids refused to sleep in their bedrooms.”
Weaver and his wife Myriam, a University of Chicago employee, joined with their neighbors, their alderman and the police to get an open-air drug market in a nearby vacant lot shut down and get the site fenced off.
Neighborhood residents also successfully pushed for onsite security at a subsidized housing development with problem tenants.
Reggie Weaver says he walks around the area picking up trash.
“Things have calmed down tremendously,” he says. “The neighborhood looks better.”
What Woodlawn needs now, some residents say, is more people and more investment.
when we're talking about black securities traders and lawyers/MBAs, those are the kinds of people buying these properties and investing in woodlawn at 700k a pop
Pilsen's gentrification stops at Damen, a pretty drastic steep fall if you ask me. Gentrification rarely leapfrogs. Huge reason why Pilsen's gentrification has taken this long is that there are active local grassroots groups that fight any development tooth and nail. In the 90s I knew a guy who's dad owned a warehouse in Pilsen. Alderman and city wouldn't rezone his warehouse so he sold it to a non profit that eventually had it rezoned for affordable housing. Podmajersky who owns pretty much all of Halsten and refuses to sell or develop has also put a huge stop to any development. By all accounts from vocal tenants I've heard they are slumlords. Little Village has had some events la Villapalooza and pop ups, but just like Pilsen they have militant activists who hate almost any type of development. I see them online railing against the proposed bike path dubbed El Paseo. Apparently building a bike path on an abandoned rail line will dispalced thousands of LV residents. They even rallied against a non defunct coffee shop on Cermak because they sold expensive coffee.
It's true that EGP lacks the commercial infrastructure and shopping district that LV, but they also have virtually no real organized groups opposing development. It seems that many residents there are desperate for development and eagerly welcome it, as opposed to LV. Another obstacle to LV gentrification is that it's literally the last neighborhood in the city.
My general comment on this is that a lot of this activism is from outside the community. There are small activists groups here but for the most part, these efforts are mobilized and mostly attended by white leftists who only step foot in the neighborhood for the protest. And if you've seen one of the protests, they are not very big. I think most people who live in the area want to see development and improvement, particularly business owners and property owners.
Chatham is another weird one. I can't recall if it's this particular forum or another Chicago one, but someone/ones keep calling it a stable, middle class neighborhood. Which just isn't true.
And then there are these boosters of Washington Park and South Shore.
If you know the city and people who live in those areas (or live there yourself), the truth is clearly those neighborhoods are by no means in any upswing, regardless of whether there is some nominal population gain in the last 10 years.
Chatham is another weird one. I can't recall if it's this particular forum or another Chicago one, but someone/ones keep calling it a stable, middle class neighborhood. Which just isn't true.
And then there are these boosters of Washington Park and South Shore.
If you know the city and people who live in those areas (or live there yourself), the truth is clearly those neighborhoods are by no means in any upswing, regardless of whether there is some nominal population gain in the last 10 years.
I think the people who deeply care about this should move to those communities. And if they're going to spend 3/4 of a million on their townhome, go for it! But we need to do better than ancedotal evidence when we're declaring a seriously troubled and violent area gentrified.
Chatham is another weird one. I can't recall if it's this particular forum or another Chicago one, but someone/ones keep calling it a stable, middle class neighborhood. Which just isn't true.
And then there are these boosters of Washington Park and South Shore.
If you know the city and people who live in those areas (or live there yourself), the truth is clearly those neighborhoods are by no means in any upswing, regardless of whether there is some nominal population gain in the last 10 years.
Chatham has pockets of middle class normalcy. Unfortunately this also attracts home invaders and others looking to prey on them.
Another problem with an area like that is a lot of kids that grow up there want to get out if they can.
My general comment on this is that a lot of this activism is from outside the community. There are small activists groups here but for the most part, these efforts are mobilized and mostly attended by white leftists who only step foot in the neighborhood for the protest. And if you've seen one of the protests, they are not very big. I think most people who live in the area want to see development and improvement, particularly business owners and property owners.
If it was mostly outside agitators it wouldn't be as effective. These are local grass roots movements. I've seen these guys protesting and it's vastly Hispanic, met a few too. Same thing with Humboldt Park, the "These flags will never come down" movement is almost exclusively Puerto Rican. Grass roots movements are 10x more effective than any astroturf or outside agitators. You are right that the vast majority of LV residents are not political activists, no argument on that part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
