Cabrini-Green Housing Projects (Chicago, Time: apartment, high crime, credit check)

[oakparkdude]

Wikipedia is great. I always learn something new when I read it. I think the prime reason Cabrini-Green is being torn down is that the real estate is extremely valuable. The power elites of Chicago are not willing to let poor people (who generally don't vote) live on such expensive property.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Wikipedia is great. I always learn something new when I read it. I think the prime reason Cabrini-Green is being torn down is that the real estate is extremely valuable. The power elites of Chicago are not willing to let poor people (who generally don't vote) live on such expensive property.

No, they're being torn down because they were unsalvagable, their continued existence was becoming politically and practically impossible to justify, and because the federal government refused to continue funding them. Every public housing highrise in the city is being torn down whether it's on "expensive" real estate or not. In fact the real estate immediately surrounding Cabrini didn't get "expensive" until news came of the impending demise of the highrises. Plus a lot of the housing that has gone up or is going up in its place is reserved for low-income families. Also note that the townhouses that comprised the Cabrini Green project are not being torn down and will continue to serve as low-income public housing. So much for your theory.

By the way, public housing highrises are coming down in cities all across the country for much the same reasons, not because they're sitting on prized real estate.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Drover

No, they're being torn down because they were unsalvagable, their continued existence was becoming politically and practically impossible to justify, and because the federal government refused to continue funding them. Every public housing highrise in the city is being torn down whether it's on "expensive" real estate or not. In fact the real estate immediately surrounding Cabrini didn't get "expensive" until news came of the impending demise of the highrises. By the way, public housing highrises are coming down in cities all across the country for much the same reasons, not because they're sitting on prized real estate.

Oh come on, you don't think that the desirability of the real estate has anything to do with the tear down? Sure, nobody is going to say it openly, but I'm sure displacement of the poor to more distant neighborhoods (or preferably, the suburbs) is part of Daley's plan. Drover, you've been around this town long enough to know how it works. You know about the dispersement of public housing residents that has been going on. Agree or disagree with it (and I mostly agree), Daley has a vision for this city, and he mostly gets his way.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Oh come on, you don't think that the desirability of the real estate has anything to do with the tear down? Sure, nobody is going to say it openly, but I'm sure displacement of the poor to more distant neighborhoods (or preferably, the suburbs) is part of Daley's plan.

No, I don't think the desirability of the real estate has anything to do with the tear down, for the reasons plainly stated in my above post. They came down -- as did or will every highrise in the city whether it's on prime real estate or not -- because they were indefensible from a fiscal and public policy standpoint. You seem to think the area has been completely swept clean of the downtrodden and completely replaced with Starbucks-chugging yuppies. Sorry, that's just not the case.

[Milliano]

From what I've read about the Chicago high rise projects, it sounds like they've been terribly managed and planned for decades. For instance how can a public housing authority allow its property to become so lawless that even police were in too much risk to go in them? It's so confusing... as if if they actually were able to enforce their rules, none of this would have ever happened. New York City has by far the most projects of any city in North America, and also a lot of low income minorities, but they aren't nearly as bad are they?

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Drover

No, I don't think the desirability of the real estate has anything to do with the tear down, for the reasons plainly stated in my above post. They came down -- as did or will every highrise in the city whether it's on prime real estate or not -- because they were indefensible from a fiscal and public policy standpoint. You seem to think the area has been completely swept clean of the downtrodden and completely replaced with Starbucks-chugging yuppies. Sorry, that's just not the case.

I don't believe I claimed that every single last tenant was being kicked out. However, the remaining public housing population is/will be significantly reduced in the end. In 2006, the CHA settled a lawsuit by Cabrini-Green residents alleging that the CHA was steering residents to relocating into high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods. Public housing residents will/are being dispersed into less pricey neighborhoods/suburbs. Additionally, some of the biggest political contributors to Daley are real estate interests.

None of this is proof, and there's always plausible deniability, but especially given the history of development in Chicago, I think there's enough data to draw your own conclusions.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Milliano

From what I've read about the Chicago high rise projects, it sounds like they've been terribly managed and planned for decades. For instance how can a public housing authority allow its property to become so lawless that even police were in too much risk to go in them? It's so confusing... as if if they actually were able to enforce their rules, none of this would have ever happened. New York City has by far the most projects of any city in North America, and also a lot of low income minorities, but they aren't nearly as bad are they?

For a long time, the CHA was horribly managed and corrupt. IMHO, a lot of this was due to the lack of interest/racism by the elites in the lives of the public housing poor. Things probably started turning around when Vince Lane took over in 1988. NYC public housing seems to have always been under decent management.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

I don't believe I claimed that every single last tenant was being kicked out.

Originally Posted by sukwoo

The power elites of Chicago are not willing to let poor people (who generally don't vote) live on such expensive property.

These are mutually exclusive statements. Either the power elites are, or are not, going to allow poor people to live in the area. It looks like the answer is, "they are." This is consistent with the city-wide stated policy goal of replacing exclusively low-income public housing with mixed-income housing. This is not at all unique to the Cabrini Green area.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Drover

No, I don't think the desirability of the real estate has anything to do with the tear down, for the reasons plainly stated in my above post. They came down -- as did or will every highrise in the city whether it's on prime real estate or not -- because they were indefensible from a fiscal and public policy standpoint. You seem to think the area has been completely swept clean of the downtrodden and completely replaced with Starbucks-chugging yuppies. Sorry, that's just not the case.

I think with Cabrini, you're both right - it was a combination of both the movement away from high-rise projects and its desirable location. Cabrini was really the first of the projects to have a deconstruction plan and I think that did have a lot to do with the fact that it's a prime location next to Old Town and Lincoln Park on North Side, as opposed to the other projects located on the South and West Sides which were decided to be taken down afterwards. Would I be cynical if I said that the push by real estate developers to take over city land for a bargain price gave City Hall as much of an incentive to go forward with getting rid of housing projects as the notion of social justice? I'm in no way arguing that's necessarily a bad thing - I'm probably about as much of a yuppie as anyone - but there are a lot of influences that go into that type of decision.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Drover

These are mutually exclusive statements. Either the power elites are, or are not, going to allow poor people to live in the area. It looks like the answer is, "they are." This is consistent with the city-wide stated policy goal of replacing exclusively low-income public housing with mixed-income housing. This is not at all unique to the Cabrini Green area.

I plead guilty to use of imprecise language. I did not mean to imply that the elite would not rest until every single last public housing resident was evicted.
I think my overall point still stands that it is in the interests of the elites to remove as many poor public housing residents from Cabrini-Green as legally/politically possible.

Drover, I actually agree with a lot of your points. I think the transformation of public housing in Chicago is a case of good public policy (mostly) converging with the interests of the real estate elite. Its just that knowing the history of Chicago, its hard to believe its not partly due to someone with power and influence out to make a buck.