East Garfield Park: Is it Worth the Risk? (Chicago, Oak Park: mattress, buy)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by CCrest182

That is, by definition of the very word "gentrification", false. The definition, is:

"Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values."

New housing =/= Wealthier residents.
...

Ah, but here is where you're playing a game uninformed by the facts, because housing values in East Garfield Park have diverged from those in West Garfield Park, and the the average incomes in East Garfield Park have also diverged from those in West Garfield Park, and I already showed you that the racial demographics are shifting. Like it or not, racial demographic shifts are a nearly perfect proxy for income shifts, especially at the extremes (areas starting with nearly 100% black or nearly 100% white or any other ethnicity). When whites move into a 95%+ black area, incomes rise with almost no exception. Prior to 1990, both WGP and EGP home prices were amazingly continuing to fall, incomes were falling, and population was falling. Between 1990 and 2000 both started to level off, with those changes stabilizing. Between 2000 and 2010, WGP continued to be mostly stable or still slightly declining but at a slower pace, and EGP has demonstrably stopped declining and started a (very slow) ascent.

That inflection point for East Garfield Park, where racial demographics change, income rises - even if it's not rising fast yet, people from outside the area are coming to the area and rehabbing buildings (you don't rehab in places where prices are declining unless you already live there and just refuse to leave), and any new businesses at all are an upward change. You seem to be stuck on the idea that "wealthier" has to mean "rich." It does not. It simply has to be "less poor" than those who are being displaced. The teardown of massive public housing formerly in the area changed the pattern. Yes, there is still some left, but it is a different form, and with different residents. That, by itself, is not gentrification, but there are also new private investments and the statistics really don't lie in this case. Incomes, house values, demographics all point to East Garfield Park having swung past the inflection point and started the slow part of gentrification, where groundwork is laid. Crime is trending down, the neighboring "good" area (the West Loop and West Gate area) are getting closer to being built out, area to the south is also stabilizing (Douglas Park, part of North Lawndale) as Pilsen starts to hit a faster part of the gentrification stride and the Medical District actually attracts residential components.

So, yes, new housing doesn't equal wealthier residents, but new housing costs more than old housing. Higher costs require wealthier residents. And the statistics all point to East Garfield Park diverging from West Garfield Park and climbing up from where it landed after decades of freefall.

[Ace Rothstein]

The biggest problem with EGP is the number of vacant lots. It is going to be a while before the neighborhood is rebuilt and is a desirable place to live because of this.

The neighborhoods that have gentrified in Chicago over the last 30 years haven't been bombed out hell holes like EGP.

[Drover]

Vacant lots are a symptom of problems, not a cause. Vacant lots are hardly a problem for the redevelopment ambitions; on the contrary, they represent a blank slate upon which they can build whatever they like, or whatever the alderman and department of buildings will let them get away with. See: Bronzeville.

[BRU67]

I can see it both ways. When looking at properties, I encountered folks trying to market north Woodlawn as Hyde Park. The many vacant lots in that 'hood create an air of instability, poverty, and just plain sadness. There's also a lot of this west of Western Avenue on the Near West Side. Despite the volume of sellers willing to wheel and deal some nice properties, I'm saying no thanks.

But on the flip side, I'm coming from an area where there weren't boarded up buildings, vacant lots and blue light cameras, so maybe I'm a bit sensitive and will miss out on something great. A developer who can buy two or three parcels may not be put off by it. If the market in Near West Side gets real hot, you may find developers willing to go for it and build on these in that community area and even EGP by spillover. But all but the most ardent pioneers will be put off by that.

[Drover]

Vacant lots don't "create" an air of instability, though they can certainly symbolize and reflect the instability around them. But the converse is also true. Here's a thought exercise for you: does the vacant land around the former Cabrini Green site create an air of instability, or is it merely a store of heretofore untapped potential? Which is more likely to happen to the land on Division between Clybourn and Halsted in the near to mid-term future: will the environment around it come to look more like vacant land, or is that vacant land more likely to resemble the redeveloped area around it? Is anyone buying a condo in the area even remotely concerned about its future prospects?

If EGP finally does gain critical momentum, what those vacant lots symbolize will change considerably.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Drover

Vacant lots don't "create" an air of instability, though they can certainly symbolize and reflect the instability around them. But the converse is also true. Here's a thought exercise for you: does the vacant land around the former Cabrini Green site create an air of instability, or is it merely a store of heretofore untapped potential? Which is more likely to happen to the land on Division between Clybourn and Halsted in the near to mid-term future: will the environment around it come to look more like vacant land, or is that vacant land more likely to resemble the redeveloped area around it? Is anyone buying a condo in the area even remotely concerned about its future prospects?

If EGP finally does gain critical momentum, what those vacant lots symbolize will change considerably.

I think it depends on the neighborhood and what else is going on around these lots.

In Woodlawn, NWS, and EGP, there is an air of instability and desolation. Now, the lots certainly aren't the only things creating the overall mood -- flashing light police cameras, broken glass all over the pavement, boarded up and sometimes burnt out homes, and groups of young men hanging about the corners also help -- but they contribute to an unwelcoming picture that most normal people looking to buy something would be put off by. The lots just don't feel like untapped potential. They feel like an albatross.

In the Cabrini area, development and other activity around the vacant areas makes you see the potential in them. You definitely don't get the same feeling of despair. And there is enough industrial area around there as you head west such that the larger vacant parcels don't have the same jarring impact that 2-3 vacant SFH lots on an EGP block do. There is a pretty big difference.

[BleedCubbieBlue]

Section 8 housing is the problem with the neighborhood. It is covered in subsidized housing. This is a major reason why East Humboldt Park doesnt FULLY gentrify as well. Too many subsidized housing units concentrated in the areas. Landlords dont mind it because federal programs pay on time and better than market rate.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I think it depends on the neighborhood and what else is going on around these lots . . .

Exactly -- the lots themselves are not the issue. Nor will they be an impediment to any redevelopment of EGP or other neighborhoods like it. The major impediment has been and will be the same forces that caused so many of those lots to become vacant in the first place.

As for Woodlawn, you may indeed have passed up a good opportunity, depending on where in Woodlawn you were looking. The chunk north of 63rd and east of Cottage Grove is gradually becoming indistinguishable from Hyde Park, complete with new student housing and UC police patrols.

[BRU67]

Right. Definitely not the sole cause. The lots became vacant and remain vacant for a reason.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Drover

.

As for Woodlawn, you may indeed have passed up a good opportunity, depending on where in Woodlawn you were looking. The sliver north of 63rd and east of Cottage Grove is gradually becoming indistinguishable from Hyde Park, complete with new student housing and UC police patrols.

The area I looked at was around 65th and Ellis. There were a few houses where there was pride but the overall air just wasn't good, I don't know. It almost felt too quiet. No vibrancy. Almost eerie. The idea of walking past all those vacant lots to the Green Line made my blood go cold. It certainly was no Hyde Park, though it's a lot cheaper than Hyde Park.

But then, I'm still getting my "City Legs" back, LOL, and the area has potential. HP should continue to push south, and there are some nice structures there and CTA access.