De-Gentrification? (Chicago, Calumet City, Melrose Park: rent, how much, neighborhood)

[Lookout Kid]

Another set of factors that may or may not play into the gentrifcation phenomenon in coming years is centered around transportation and energy. It is clear to me that the automobile-centered energy-intensive lifestyle of suburban sprawl is not sustainable in the long term, and that some sort of contraction will have to occur eventually. This will not necessarily happen around the central city entirely--but may center around multiple transportation nodes in the metropolitain area. The oil supply will run out eventually, and we will probably struggle to continue our happy motoring ways for a few more decades using some much-too-expensive alternative technology. At some point we will realize that more compact towns and cities are a better alternative than expending huge amounts of energy in private automobiles.

These changes could be decades into the future, however. I have a feeling that we'll stretch out our automobile-centered lifestyle further into the future than we really should.

[Attrill]

The trend over the last 20 years has definitely been towards gentrification. Chicago lost 6.6% of it's white population between 1990-2000, but only 0.7% between 2000-2006. The 2010 census may actually show an increase - increases are already being seen in Atlanta, DC and San Francisco. Despite the economic downturn there currently is force to drive people out of the cities.

I think it's also important to note that gentrification is not based on race or ethnicity, it is based on property values and income levels. As a general rule the demographics of neighborhoods do change with gentrification, but they don't define "gentrification". It is entirely possible to have one minority group displace another through gentrification. A case could be made that it is happening with Hispanic immigrants and African-Americans in some neighborhoods.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Attrill

I think it's also important to note that gentrification is not based on race or ethnicity, it is based on property values and income levels. As a general rule the demographics of neighborhoods do change with gentrification, but they don't define "gentrification". It is entirely possible to have one minority group displace another through gentrification. A case could be made that it is happening with Hispanic immigrants and African-Americans in some neighborhoods.

I suppose this is possible. But most nice places that middle-to-upper class white people refuse to live in have serious issues. A lack of white residents can be a pretty good indicator for certain social ills.

[ajolotl]

It's a good question. One change that I'm anecdotally very aware of since the 70s is the number of white people who actually put racial diversity (high) on their list of priorities when choosing a neighborhood. This 'liberal elite' type of yuppie is of a very different mindset than the residents who fled the south side starting in the 60s. Hypocritical, self-congratulating, or whatever you want to call them they do put significant money down in semi-blighted areas. It's not immediately clear to me what would reverse that trend that doesn't exist already.

[Humboldt1]

What would reverse this would be a sustained real estate decline. If a bunch of these yuppies who paid $300K for their condo that are suddenly worth $200K and they owe more than it is worth and go into foreclosure this could lead to an overall decline in the area. I don't see this happening. Instead, other yuppies will buy these properties for less money.

Those who fled in the 60s and 70s were not the liberal elite that are moving back into the city. It would be interesting if the white population were to increase or stay the same 2000-2010. This would mean same number of whites (basically +1 or -1% is the same), more hispanics and less blacks for Chicago. Eventually, you will not see guys like Stroger getting elected as the black voting base will continue to decline. Look for more hispanic politicians to rise to power, with some white politicians holding on in areas on the north and northwest sides and some black politicians holding on in black majority areas on the west and south sides.

[oakparkdude]

Don't forget, its the far exurbs that are being hit the hardest in this real estate market. The desirable neighborhoods (both city and suburban) are going to weather the downturn the best.

[BRU67]

I think the “back to the city” movement is here to stay. I’ve thought that for years and feel even stronger about it now after the election of a President who will bring attention to (and hopefully properly begin to address) urban issues. I also think that high energy prices are here to stay, which will make ex-burbs much less attractive than they were in the past.

Faced with the steep entry price of an “established” suburb with good public transit access and schools, an unproven ex-burb with generic housing stock where you have to drive everywhere, or a vibrant up and coming urban area that’s not perfect but interesting, I think more and more folks will choose the latter -- particularly younger home buyers who want amenities and culture to be a part of their home ownership experience, while being environmentally responsible.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the salad days of 5 years ago when 61 out of the 77 Chicago Community Areas were going to be the “Next Bucktown” are over. I think there will be more than a few disappointed amateur investors who were hoping to double their cash in some rough areas but I don’t think we’ll see de-gentrification of any areas that saw tangible change.

As some are saying, actual gentrification was more limited than what people think. The vast majority of the Chicago Community Areas didn’t see gentrification. In fact, many declined due to displacement of lower income people from the gentrifying areas (or forced gentrification in the case of the Cabrin-Green area). The majority of these folks, certainly to Daley’s chagrin now, remained in the City. They just went to less sexy neighborhoods on the south and west sides.

I think you’ll see continued growth of the most desirable areas in the City and near suburbs that are close to public transit. That could really accelerate if the City and inner-ring suburbs continue to come up with creative ways to offer better public education to their brightest residents (e.g. magnet and charter schools). I think people who live in urban areas understand the education dilemma pretty well now, and that the "brain drain" of young affluent families is detrimental. So the old tried 'n true "when they have kids they'll head west" model may be broken in a few years. It already is being broken in some cases.

[chet everett]

I think a lot of people are neglecting the basics of "cost and value" calculations. While it is true that the ex-urbs were hit hardest with declines in real estate prices, the fact remains that the total value offered "out there" may still be better than in "fringe gentrification" areas. Look at costs per square foot and total annual cost-of-living VS total household income. Remember it is not just a place to sleep, the declines in office & commercial space also mean it is cheaper for BUSINESS to grow "out there". Cheap gas helps this tremendously, as do the increases in Cook Co and Chicago tax rates. Slower growth gives the ex-urbs 'breathing room' so they don't have to ramp up schools and other services as quickly, while Chicago has to keep hiking rates to make up for the aging City workforce and its promised cushy benefits.

I'm not talking about Lincoln Park or some other place that has been sky-high for decades, but compare the fringe stuff. Lincoln Park is like "old money" at this point -- the areas to be more concerned with are Rogers Park, Bronzeville, Pilsen etc. Areas where crime is still a factor, and investors were slow to come in could very well "degentrify" just as the ex-urbs COULD go "new slum belt"... A lot will come down to things that like the cost of the Stroger & Daley taxes, "union labor rates" , pokey and corrupt zoning policies and the same old same old that drive away dollars. Do some simple comparisons of what makes a town like Harvey hit the skids and then tell me whether there are more of those factors at work in Plano or Chicago...

Even in broad demographic terms there is a BIG Hispanic presence in many towns throughout the region and they are generally MORE affluent and MORE self-employed than the 'inside Chicago" Hispanic bloc, so those areas should be recovering / being more resilient than people 'stuck' in old ways.

You known "change we can believe in" will lift the boats that get on top of the tidal wave and SWAMP the old barges tied to the the pier...

[Lookout Kid]

As any resident of Rogers Park or Uptown knows, Gentrification can be suspended in a partially completed state for decades at a time. My thought is that the neighborhoods that Chet mentioned could remain partially gentrified for quite a long time if crime doesn't get totally out of control. The history of New York City shows that this is possible, and that full-tilt gentrification can always sweep back in during the next boom cycle.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

As any resident of Rogers Park or Uptown knows, Gentrification can be suspended in a partially completed state for decades at a time. My thought is that the neighborhoods that Chet could remain partially gentrified for quite a long time if crime doesn't get totally out of control. The history of New York City shows that this is possible, and that full-tilt gentrification can always sweep back in during the next boom cycle.

There are lots of examples of "suspended animation" type incomplete developments, both in the city and the 'burbs. In the burbs that incomplete development will generally be half-finished subdivisions and vacant strip malls. In the city that is more likely to be structures boarded-up and/or owned by absentee slum lords. As long as the area is past some critical mix of OWNERS vs renters and working people vs un/underemployed things won't slide too far.

The biggest factor probably is violent crime, and that is why when I think of some place like Huntley, Plano, Channahon or what have you I do not think of gangs, muggings, or hard core violence and see them rebounding more quickly than fringe gentrification areas. Some of these things are due to factors that are "baked in" like density and development patterns which is why I am reluctant to really endorse the whole "back to the city movement" that some think is the cat's meow -- one person's interesting clubs and music venues is another's "magnet for crime" in a way that a merely boring vacant strip mall is just going to be a magnet for tumbleweeds...