Why less development of the South Side ? (Evergreen Park, Lincoln: apartment complexes, neighborhood)

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by mas23

But on the flipside, don't alot of amenities come AFTER new residents decide to live in the neighborhood. A lot of business won't set up shop in a neighborhood where there is little to no demand like you sain in the 1st paragraph.

Almost like a chicken-egg situation

mas23

Yes, certainly with most retailers, they follow the people and money.

[Chicago60614]

The south side was very dense though in many areas. Even Englewood had a density of around 30,000 per square mile (like edgewater today) up until the 1960's. Since then though the population has dropped by around 70%.

The numbers in many of these area are staggering.

Englewood:

1960: 97,595
2010: 30,654

Roseland:

1980: 64,372
2010: 44,619

Washington Park:

1950: 56,856 (38,000 psm)
2010: 11,717

Grand Blvd:

1950: 114,557 (66,000 psm)
2010: 21,929

Oakland:

1960: 24,464 (40,000 psm)
2010: 5,918

Fuller Park:

1950: 17,174
2010: 2,876

North Lawndale:

1960: 124,937 (39,000 psm)
2010: 35,912

E. Garfield Park:

1950: 70,091
2010: 20,567

Near West:

1960: 160,362
2000: 46,419
2010: 54,881

Lincoln Park:

1950: 102,396
2010: 64,116

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

The south side was very dense though in many areas. Even Englewood had a density of around 30,000 per square mile (like edgewater today) up until the 1960's. Since then though the population has dropped by around 70%.

The numbers in many of these area are staggering.

Englewood:

1960: 97,595
2010: 30,654

Roseland:

1980: 64,372
2010: 44,619

Washington Park:

1950: 56,856 (38,000 psm)
2010: 11,717

Grand Blvd:

1950: 114,557 (66,000 psm)
2010: 21,929

Oakland:

1960: 24,464 (40,000 psm)
2010: 5,918

Fuller Park:

1950: 17,174
2010: 2,876

North Lawndale:

1960: 124,937 (39,000 psm)
2010: 35,912

E. Garfield Park:

1950: 70,091
2010: 20,567

Near West:

1960: 160,362
2000: 46,419
2010: 54,881

Lincoln Park:

1950: 102,396
2010: 64,116

And you can see it in all these neighborhoods. With the exception of course of the last two, the rest of these you have see on many streets there may only be one or two houses/two-flats left, and the rest of the block has become a small urban prairie. Not quite on the level as to what one sees in Detroit but similar idea.

Near West, you obviously had major razing of neighborhoods to make way for the Medical District/UIC (as well as expressways).

Lincoln Park, is more the classic example of how gentrification has led to lower density as families get replaced by single households/couples/maybe small families and housing units would get consolidated.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

And you can see it in all these neighborhoods. With the exception of course of the last two, the rest of these you have see on many streets there may only be one or two houses/two-flats left, and the rest of the block has become a small urban prairie. Not quite on the level as to what one sees in Detroit but similar idea.

Near West, you obviously had major razing of neighborhoods to make way for the Medical District/UIC (as well as expressways).

Lincoln Park, is more the classic example of how gentrification has led to lower density as families get replaced by single households/couples/maybe small families and housing units would get consolidated.

Which goes with what I pointed out, areas like Lincoln Park use to be middle class family worker areas, which I think they are a great reason that has preserved the Northside's integrity. The razing of buildings in the Southside is one of the biggest hurdles for that area today. Obviously crime is a main driving issue, but it is hard to correct an areas when there has been so much damage done to its urban landscape.

[mjtinmemphis]

I've wondered about how cities development is one sided. I thought with Chicago was political. I don't want to sound repetitive but I noticed a map showing where the city has authorized food trucks, they are all on the north side south of Irving Park road. It has to be somewhat politically influenced.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Which goes with what I pointed out, areas like Lincoln Park use to be middle class family worker areas, which I think they are a great reason that has preserved the Northside's integrity. The razing of buildings in the Southside is one of the biggest hurdles for that area today. Obviously crime is a main driving issue, but it is hard to correct an areas when there has been so much damage done to its urban landscape.

If it follows the north side pattern of revitalization like wicker - bucktown - to logan, economic prosperity will start from the city core and radiate outward along the public transit lines.

Look at what happened to the south loop and now moving into bronzeville. Even with all the razed buildings on the South side, think of the advantage of being able to build new midrises and condos as the neighborhoods spread out.

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

I've wondered about how cities development is one sided. I thought with Chicago was political. I don't want to sound repetitive but I noticed a map showing where the city has authorized food trucks, they are all on the north side south of Irving Park road. It has to be somewhat politically influenced.

Or it's where the dense target demographic is located. Would you want to plow your life savings into an investment and have it somewhere that there's no real market for? The north side area noted has block after block of two and three unit building packed with people.

[marothisu]

I really think part of the problem has to do with the fact the South Side is so big. The North Side's area is really not all that big...and because it's so big coupled with the train system not being the greatest on the SS..

I mean, hell, there's some restaurants I want to try in Greater Grand Crossing and Park Manor, but since I don't have a car, I don't want to hassle with it. I went through Auburn Gresham and Beverly View yesterday. I mean, again..some good looking restaurants (cheap southern/soul food) and stuff down there, but realistically, I'm not going there anytime soon because of the logistics. I'm not a fan of long bus rides on the CTA either.

In all honesty, a lot of development can be spurred by ease of public transit. There's a reason why on the north side and west sides in the popular neighborhoods, you have a lot of establishments within an easy walking distance of the L. The problem with the L on the South Side is that the train stations are right in the middle in the freeway, and then there's surface roads ontop of that on the side that the NW side doesn't necessarily have for awhile.


I really wish the L went through Hyde Park and down to Jackson Park, not the Metra.

[rparz]

Yeah, and even along the Ryan near the train stops there isn't all that much to make for a destination.

And no, a strip mall with chain-owned retail doesn't make a destination worth crossing the city for.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rparz

Yeah, and even along the Ryan near the train stops there isn't all that much to make for a destination.

And no, a strip mall with chain-owned retail doesn't make a destination worth crossing the city for.

I can only think of a few places along the Ryan, but not really. I think there's a poor excuse for a strip mall along 63rd in Englewood with a bunch of food, and then there's a few drive ins along the Dan Ryan, but yeah. There's mostly houses. If I am going to move somewhere, without a car especially, I want to be able to have things around the train station. I want to be able to live within walking distance of it and have things.

It's just not attractive to developers. The planners of at least the Red Line ****ed it up for the south side portion. But if you think about it, they kind of had to because those areas used to be dense. You don't want to displace people and make them move just because you want to extend the train line to go west by 5 miles. Although, yes it does happen..

I think the Green Line has more potential, but of course it goes through Englewood and Washington Park, which are not great neighborhoods, and a lot of Bronzeville is sketch too. I think if you wanted to see more development on the South Side, you'd have to start with Douglas and Bronzeville (I know they tried) because they're on the train and close to downtown. Too bad they won't do it..really those areas would be prime.

Too bad extending train tracks costs so much money...

[rparz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I think the Green Line has more potential, but of course it goes through Englewood and Washington Park, which are not great neighborhoods, and a lot of Bronzeville is sketch too. I think if you wanted to see more development on the South Side, you'd have to start with Douglas and Bronzeville (I know they tried) because they're on the train and close to downtown. Too bad they won't do it..really those areas would be prime.

Give it time, once the economy starts coming back around. Development and investment will pick back up in Douglas and Bronzeville as the north side and south loop is only so large.