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.
The only times it can be problematic is for low income renters that lose the more "affordable" housing when building get redeveloped or condo converted and the elderly homeowners on fixed incomes that get squeezed because the taxes rise to dramatically to the great "value" of their property and neighborhood.
Affordable housing is lost in the gentrification process. But the need for affordable housing is also lost if the poorer resident moves on to another area (i.e. demand is reduced by one resident). The question is, will another area then become more affordable? Usually not--and then there is a net loss. But I personally have no problem letting the market dictate which areas are affordable and not affordable. Once you get rid of the displacement argument, there is no reason to build MORE affordable housing in areas that already have "their share" of affordable housing (like Uptown and Rogers Park, for instance).
I know a number of Puerto Ricans who are very opposed to gentrification in Humboldt Park. The Mexicans are mostly newer arrivals and using the area as a moveup neighborhood while some of the puerto ricans have been here at least 2 generations. The Mexicans don't seem to care as much about gentrification as they are here less time and will move on as they gain affluence.
I am all for gentrification but understand that it can be bad for poor renters who are forced out as their building is converted to condos or rents go up. Owners sometimes are forced out with increased property taxes but they actually benefit when and if they sell.
Gentrification is great for those moving in but makes areas less affordable.
Organizations such as Bickerdike and HHDC are determined to keep poor in gentrifying neighborhoods but what ends up happening is you have mini ghettos develop around their developments (HHDC somewhat less as they also offer owner occupied units in additon to rentals). What ends up happening is these developments, particularly bickerdike, keep pockets of neighborhoods poor and free of gentrification.
These pockets have extreme poverty, loitering and drugs. Essentiallt, many of the problems you used to find in CHA developments are found around these developments to a lessor degree. Property values within a few buildings of these mini projects are negatively affected and crime rates are higher. Many of the blue lights in humboldt park north of grand (south of grand it is just ghetto) are near these developments.
Gentrification is certainly bad for some. Some of these poor people are good while many are not or enable those that break the law (relatives of drug dealers and gangbangers). Gentrification certainly hurts some but in the end the neighborhood is better off because of it.
The question is, will another area then become more affordable? Usually not--and then there is a net loss.
I don't know how relevant that is, if the area that poorer people relocate to is already cheaper than the area that they left. They generally move into areas with relatively cheap and under-utilized housing, and they significantly increase the population density of said area. Take Chicago Lawn for example - its population increased 20% in just ten years, from 1990 to 2000. Or Cicero, which increased by 27% over the same time period.
I'm not so sure a poorer neighborhood is necessarily more "affordable". Poor neighborhoods generally have higher crime, and thus security is a bigger issue. This raises the cost of doing business in those areas, which in turn raises the costs of goods and services that its local residents use. (Some liberals cry "racism" and "greed" as their own explanation for this simple fact.)
And the lower the property values are, the less capital available for the area to use to improve itself. The less capital a person, property owner, or business has, the less money they can borrow from a bank.
I don't it see it happening to the degree that would have much impact. I mean if you take a look at the actual block level development in certain parts of the City and compare it to just about any random non-city area there are some striking difference that mean it is unlikely that gasoline prices would be a leveler.
Take one simple example -- There are some nice playgrounds and ball fields that the Chicago Park District has, but basically every suburb has nicer such fields that are built with abundant parking. The number of residents that can and do drive to these parks from VERY close by is very high, the trips are rarely more than a mile or two. The amount of gas used is inconsequential. In the City the parks rarely have adequate vehicle parking, which would seem to encourage walking or public transportation, yet the monetary COST of using public transit likely is greater than an equivalent trip via a personal vehicle even with gas at triple what it is now. Further, the lack of comfort given the variability of our weather makes it unlikely that people would walk more than across the street except in the somewhat rare patches of near perfect weather. Even if the weather was pleasant the TIME to walk more than few blocks is pretty costly when comparing to the time spent in a vehicle in an uncongested suburban development. Oddly, because of the unpleasantness of walking along / across busier thorough fares, some parts of the city that should technically be "more walkable" in terms of sidewalks and such probably have LESS people walking than in many suburban areas. Consider MLK Drive from basically McCormack Place / Chinatown all the way to 35th. Has there been a MARKED improvement in appearance/cleanliness? Yes, some vacant stretches are now spotless. (no doubt part of 2016 games selection prep...) Safety? Most certainly, the police HQ is down there! Development? Apparently so -- there is now a Starbucks/JimmyJohns/Kinkos across from IITRI where there used to be Robert Taylor projects. Yet the 'boulevard" does not have much shade/ tree canopy, the hardness of the Dunbar campus looks more like a factory than a high school, other than a Jewel near Lake Meadows there is a lack of any commercial development for quite a stretch... On the whole the area looks a bit like "Brasilia" more than a place that one would care to call home. In the same general neck of the woods, head west into Bridgeport. There has been a lot of development west of the tracks. Lots of homes that I am sure cost a pretty penny. But no suburban tear down "McMansion" has anything to be ashamed in comparison to these "masonary messes" -- all bulk, no charm. Ridiculous dimensions. No yard. Yuck. I like baseball, but all the "permit parking, residents only" with cul de sacs, dead-ends, one way streets, speed bumps et cetera would seem to suggest that the residents HARDLY welcome baseball fans... I don't doubt there are some folks that live in the area and get along with their next door neighbors, but looking at the proliferation of fences, gates, locks, chains et cetera it sure seems distrust / safety is big in their minds. Even the ridiculous lack of space for porches and such means that people are unlikely to 'hang out on the stoop". In the 'burbs people are going to spend a lot more time out mowing lawns, getting the newspapers waaaaay down by the end of the drive, grilling out, yackin' over the fence...
If you actually LOOK at the kind of development that has been most popular / most in demand /greatest price run up, it stuff that sort of takes the best of a close in town like Oak Park and AMPLIFIES the good while toning down the bad -- all through the suburbs tear down / infill has tried, to varying degrees, to retain the charm of traditional American residential styles, on lot sizes that emphasize some density, while providing some set-backs / privacy. There is an effort to spur some retail and dining, while keeping it confined to areas that can accommodate parking while not disrupting residential streets. Vehicular through traffic is directed toward feeder streets and arterials. High quality development encourages firms to set to aim for a higher income clientèle , hopefully being able to afford greater overhead costs.
The same "formula" has been employed along ALL the Metra routes and has been mostly successful. You are not seeing a whole lot of "bushas" pushing their folding shopping baskets along with a fresh days worth of groceries, but otherwise the essential "good parts" of urbanism are already successful in many Chicago suburbs...
The limits of "hipster" driven gentrification may have already been seen. If prices in quiet, safe towns that do have a lot to offer make them more affordable AND better suited to having TIME to appreciate one's home family then why would people be throwing their money at developments that are 'sketchy' -- a condo with SS appliances, granite, and 'luxury bath' is just as easy to do in the 'burbs vs 'hipster land'.
What IS harder to do in surburbia is find the low wage food service workers and even live music performers. For towns that do have rental property that is affordable to such folks there is a BIG squeeze to "keep those areas QUIET" and recently there have been police crackdowns that try to do so (probably illegal...).
Some suburbs are probably a better bet for targeting SIMPLE maintenance of a status just above this -- busboys, cooks, dishwashers, wannabe rock stars all need a place that is safe but cheap. The problem I see in MOST part of City of Chicago it that the costs to renovate / open a resturant are quite high. The salestax is gonna make that WORSE! You cannot afford to pay union wages and open a "Greek Diner". Further you cannot get people to come to some 'emerging' area and pay "downtown" prices. And the busboys, waiters and dishwashers won't spend money even at a hotdog stand. Really not a good solution to the tug-of-war... I had high hopes that SOME places might emerge in Bronzeville, but so far the dining reviews are NOT encouraging. If you want a taco /burrito or some crappy fast food there are dozens of options close by, but a place that is "nice enough / different enough" to be a true attraction has not happened. Not sure that it ever will.
I don't it see it happening to the degree that would have much impact. I mean if you take a look at the actual block level development in certain parts of the City and compare it to just about any random non-city area there are some striking difference that mean it is unlikely that gasoline prices would be a leveler.
Take one simple example -- There are some nice playgrounds and ball fields that the Chicago Park District has, but basically every suburb has nicer such fields that are built with abundant parking. The number of residents that can and do drive to these parks from VERY close by is very high, the trips are rarely more than a mile or two. The amount of gas used is inconsequential. In the City the parks rarely have adequate vehicle parking, which would seem to encourage walking or public transportation, yet the monetary COST of using public transit likely is greater than an equivalent trip via a personal vehicle even with gas at triple what it is now. Further, the lack of comfort given the variability of our weather makes it unlikely that people would walk more than across the street except in the somewhat rare patches of near perfect weather. Even if the weather was pleasant the TIME to walk more than few blocks is pretty costly when comparing to the time spent in a vehicle in an uncongested suburban development. Oddly, because of the unpleasantness of walking along / across busier thorough fares, some parts of the city that should technically be "more walkable" in terms of sidewalks and such probably have LESS people walking than in many suburban areas. Consider MLK Drive from basically McCormack Place / Chinatown all the way to 35th. Has there been a MARKED improvement in appearance/cleanliness? Yes, some vacant stretches are now spotless. (no doubt part of 2016 games selection prep...) Safety? Most certainly, the police HQ is down there! Development? Apparently so -- there is now a Starbucks/JimmyJohns/Kinkos across from IITRI where there used to be Robert Taylor projects. Yet the 'boulevard" does not have much shade/ tree canopy, the hardness of the Dunbar campus looks more like a factory than a high school, other than a Jewel near Lake Meadows there is a lack of any commercial development for quite a stretch... On the whole the area looks a bit like "Brasilia" more than a place that one would care to call home. In the same general neck of the woods, head west into Bridgeport. There has been a lot of development west of the tracks. Lots of homes that I am sure cost a pretty penny. But no suburban tear down "McMansion" has anything to be ashamed in comparison to these "masonary messes" -- all bulk, no charm. Ridiculous dimensions. No yard. Yuck. I like baseball, but all the "permit parking, residents only" with cul de sacs, dead-ends, one way streets, speed bumps et cetera would seem to suggest that the residents HARDLY welcome baseball fans... I don't doubt there are some folks that live in the area and get along with their next door neighbors, but looking at the proliferation of fences, gates, locks, chains et cetera it sure seems distrust / safety is big in their minds. Even the ridiculous lack of space for porches and such means that people are unlikely to 'hang out on the stoop". In the 'burbs people are going to spend a lot more time out mowing lawns, getting the newspapers waaaaay down by the end of the drive, grilling out, yackin' over the fence...
If you actually LOOK at the kind of development that has been most popular / most in demand /greatest price run up, it stuff that sort of takes the best of a close in town like Oak Park and AMPLIFIES the good while toning down the bad -- all through the suburbs tear down / infill has tried, to varying degrees, to retain the charm of traditional American residential styles, on lot sizes that emphasize some density, while providing some set-backs / privacy. There is an effort to spur some retail and dining, while keeping it confined to areas that can accommodate parking while not disrupting residential streets. Vehicular through traffic is directed toward feeder streets and arterials. High quality development encourages firms to set to aim for a higher income clientèle , hopefully being able to afford greater overhead costs.
The same "formula" has been employed along ALL the Metra routes and has been mostly successful. You are not seeing a whole lot of "bushas" pushing their folding shopping baskets along with a fresh days worth of groceries, but otherwise the essential "good parts" of urbanism are already successful in many Chicago suburbs...
The limits of "hipster" driven gentrification may have already been seen. If prices in quiet, safe towns that do have a lot to offer make them more affordable AND better suited to having TIME to appreciate one's home family then why would people be throwing their money at developments that are 'sketchy' -- a condo with SS appliances, granite, and 'luxury bath' is just as easy to do in the 'burbs vs 'hipster land'.
What IS harder to do in surburbia is find the low wage food service workers and even live music performers. For towns that do have rental property that is affordable to such folks there is a BIG squeeze to "keep those areas QUIET" and recently there have been police crackdowns that try to do so (probably illegal...).
Some suburbs are probably a better bet for targeting SIMPLE maintenance of a status just above this -- busboys, cooks, dishwashers, wannabe rock stars all need a place that is safe but cheap. The problem I see in MOST part of City of Chicago it that the costs to renovate / open a resturant are quite high. The salestax is gonna make that WORSE! You cannot afford to pay union wages and open a "Greek Diner". Further you cannot get people to come to some 'emerging' area and pay "downtown" prices. And the busboys, waiters and dishwashers won't spend money even at a hotdog stand. Really not a good solution to the tug-of-war... I had high hopes that SOME places might emerge in Bronzeville, but so far the dining reviews are NOT encouraging. If you want a taco /burrito or some crappy fast food there are dozens of options close by, but a place that is "nice enough / different enough" to be a true attraction has not happened. Not sure that it ever will.
Excellent post. Also, don't forget about public school systems - while this isn't an issue for a lot of young people right out of college, this is probably issue #1 for families (who have the means, anyway) in choosing where to live. While suburban growth might slow down, I think that the prospects of a mass reverse migration back into the city are overstated even with high gas prices if only because of the school factor (regardless of whether it's a fair perception). There are a lot of sacrifices that parents are willing to make in terms of providing an education for their kids and higher gas prices are just one more item that has been added to that list. Singles, DINKs and empty nesters can pick up and move with relative ease, but that's not the case for families with school-aged kids (who make up a disproportionate percentage of suburban home buyers).
Affordable housing is lost in the gentrification process. But the need for affordable housing is also lost if the poorer resident moves on to another area (i.e. demand is reduced by one resident). The question is, will another area then become more affordable? Usually not--and then there is a net loss. But I personally have no problem letting the market dictate which areas are affordable and not affordable. Once you get rid of the displacement argument, there is no reason to build MORE affordable housing in areas that already have "their share" of affordable housing (like Uptown and Rogers Park, for instance).
This comment does not sound like one that votes Democrat should make. Hmm...
This comment does not sound like one that votes Democrat should make. Hmm...
I'm a centrist on most economic issues, Mr Fire. As you may have noticed, I vehemently oppose many of Chicago's finiest lefties like Helen Shiller, Joe Moore, and Todd Stroger. And Blago is a damn fool.
I'm a centrist on most economic issues, Mr Fire. As you may have noticed, I vehemently oppose many of Chicago's finiest lefties like Helen Shiller, Joe Moore, and Todd Stroger. And Blago is a damn fool.
I applaud you for that. I was just rattling your cage.
This comment does not sound like one that votes Democrat should make. Hmm...
I'm a lifelong Democrat and hard core trade unionist and economic liberal and I don't believe in "afforable housing". I believe in good wages and "regular" housing. And I wouldn't spend a nickel subsidizing people who won't work or who bear bastard children.
I don't hold with all this hand wringing over gentrification either, the social liberals didn't cry when nice working and middle class neighborhoods went down the drain in the 1950s and 60s. You younger guys wouldn't believe what a gorgeous neighborhood Austin was 50 years ago. So now the wheel turns a little and people moving in and improving neighborhoods are supposed to feel guilty. To Hell with that.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and hard core trade unionist and economic liberal and I don't believe in "afforable housing". I believe in good wages and "regular" housing. And I wouldn't spend a nickel subsidizing people who won't work or who bear bastard children.
I don't hold with all this hand wringing over gentrification either, the social liberals didn't cry when nice working and middle class neighborhoods went down the drain in the 1950s and 60s. You younger guys wouldn't believe what a gorgeous neighborhood Austin was 50 years ago. So now the wheel turns a little and people moving in and improving neighborhoods are supposed to feel guilty. To Hell with that.
Amen!
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.