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.
IMO, the places to gentrify will be Bronzeville south to Hyde Park, Pilsen, Little Village, Humboldt Park. I really don't think EGP is going to gentrify any time soon, sadly.
If there's no substantial economic crash, I'm guessing EGP will start seeing substantial redevelopment a decade after the Damen and Lake stop is built. A tad faster with the Metra to rapid transit service conversion for the Western Metra stop.
There's a lot going on in the West Loop and Fulton Market with corporate jobs and other developments, so it seems reasonable that the straight shot to all these the Green Line offers on the West Side is going to be strongly affected and that Damen and Lake stop means that there's another station close enough near the Ashland one to form a contiguous development area to spread westwards. If that mile and a half gap between California and Ashland just remained as is, then it'd take much, much longer.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-14-2017 at 09:19 AM..
Houston is gaining 150+ thousand people a year, Seattle 60 thousand a year, New York 40 thousand a year... Chicago basically stagnation.
Until we actually see real population growth, the west and south won't see a ton of gentrification. Just not enough people with disposal income to fill the holes.
Will they sustain those #s is the question. Houston's economy is susceptible to boom and busts and population growth is (mostly) driven by immigration. Predominately from Mexico and South America. Also a sizable Asian population. Trump's likely to slow immigration down (assuming he lasts four years) and automation will continue to dry up any low-skill jobs in the area.
Seattle is much more likely to continue its boom than Houston IMO. If anything Chicago is trending towards what NYC has become. Will it be as dramatic of a turnaround is to be determined.
To be fair, unlike Detroit, there are no parts of Chicago with block after block completely vacant of structures. Even in the worst areas (probably Englewood) it looks like 60-70% of lots have buildings still standing. Neighborhoods like Austin actually have very few vacant lots. Granted much of the existing housing is dilapidated and/or abandoned and beyond repair, but a good portion of it is salvageable IF it make sense to invest money in them. All it would take is consistent, long-term population growth.
I will agree with that. We are certainly not as bad off as Detroit. But we also don't have the kind of population growth necessary the create the kind of housing demand which would fill those gaps in. I really hope that changes and we become more like Seattle and Houston. But in the interim, the limited number of hipsters and lower paid creative types we do have are going to avoid the troubled areas because there are better options which are affordable.
But in the interim, the limited number of hipsters and lower paid creative types we do have are going to avoid the troubled areas because there are better options which are affordable.
But I thought the areas those "pioneers" first moved into were troubled. Gritty and dangerous enough to deter the mainstream population. Like Wicker Park back when, and Pilsen today. I suppose those areas had factors that attracted the hipsters: public transit, history, unique businesses, etc. Even if highly troubled areas, like East Garfield Park, have those factors too, gentrification there is not impossible.
By contrast, traditional Bungalow Belts, which developed later and don't have those elements to as great an extent, will probably continue to be working-class for the foreseeable future. Plus, Bungalow Belt architecture is so widespread around Chicago and inner suburbs, that it's less likely to have the uniqueness appeal of older neighborhoods.
Last edited by MillennialUrbanist; 02-14-2017 at 09:55 AM..
But I thought the areas those "pioneers" first moved into were troubled. Gritty and dangerous enough to deter the mainstream population. Like Wicker Park back when, and Pilsen today. I suppose those areas had factors that attracted the hipsters: public transit, history, unique businesses, etc. Even if highly troubled areas, like East Garfield Park, have those factors too, gentrification there is not impossible.
By contrast, traditional Bungalow Belts, which developed later and don't have those elements to as great an extent, will probably continue to be working-class for the foreseeable future. Plus, Bungalow Belt architecture is so widespread around Chicago and inner suburbs, that it's less likely to have the uniqueness appeal of older neighborhoods.
The ones that Chicago pioneers moved into were Bucktown/Wicker Park, Logan Square, Pilsen, and, more recently, east Humboldt Park. Those areas were gritty and low income but there was also sense of community, some relatively vibrant business districts, and few vacant lots. Interestingly, all were predominantly Hispanic. Little Village has these elements so if you're using history and location as a guide, that's what you'd bet on.
East Garfield Park has a lot of violence which reflects a lack of a social fabric. There are few if any business districts and many vacant residential lots. That sound like no big deal on paper and it would be easy to correct were there interest in the neighborhood I suppose. But if you've seen it live, you understand. Those lots create a sense of unease which I cannot really describe here. I didn't say it would never gentrify, but it's going to need some government assistance to do so, or an absolute explosion in Chicago's economy that makes housing cost-prohibitive in other areas - though then again, San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood never gentrified despite being right near the central business district and despite astronomical housing costs throughout the city.
I agree on the bungalow belt neighborhoods. They seem hipster-proof for whatever reason while being very attractive to working class families, so they'll probably never gentrify. We're seeing a major Hispanic influx into those areas and I suspect that'll continue.
The ones that Chicago pioneers moved into were Bucktown/Wicker Park, Logan Square, Pilsen, and, more recently, east Humboldt Park. Those areas were gritty and low income but there was also sense of community, some relatively vibrant business districts, and few vacant lots. Interestingly, all were predominantly Hispanic. Little Village has these elements so if you're using history and location as a guide, that's what you'd bet on.
East Garfield Park has a lot of violence which reflects a lack of a social fabric. There are few if any business districts and many vacant residential lots. That sound like no big deal on paper and it would be easy to correct were there interest in the neighborhood I suppose. But if you've seen it live, you understand. Those lots create a sense of unease which I cannot really describe here. I didn't say it would never gentrify, but it's going to need some government assistance to do so, or an absolute explosion in Chicago's economy that makes housing cost-prohibitive in other areas - though then again, San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood never gentrified despite being right near the central business district and despite astronomical housing costs throughout the city.
I agree on the bungalow belt neighborhoods. They seem hipster-proof for whatever reason while being very attractive to working class families, so they'll probably never gentrify. We're seeing a major Hispanic influx into those areas and I suspect that'll continue.
The gentrifying neighborhoods all (or most) being Hispanic is interesting. I wonder what specifically attracts hipsters there. Is it the delicious food? Is it the opportunity to practice Spanish they learned in high school? (Hey, why not? ) Or it could be the traits you described. Of course, human thinking is really complex. So we'll never know for sure.
The East Garfield Park situation isn't easy. It does have a rich history of once being a vibrant Jewish neighborhood. Also the Green Line and a 24/7 bus route. What it lacks are businesses for day-to-day life, outside of fast food and whatever was carved out on the first floor of abandoned buildings. I've actually have seen the area live, when I took a "Jewish Chicago" tour with my synagogue in 2009. They drove us through areas that used to be Jewish, but not anymore: East Garfield Park, Kenwood, Lawndale, and South Shore. We even got to leave the bus in Hyde Park, which still retains its Jewish identity very well. With the exception of Hyde Park and Kenwood, the areas didn't look attractive at all, which can't be good for bringing in gentrifiers.
Most Bungalow Belt neighborhoods are pretty auto-centric, although nothing like suburbs. The businesses there are more chains, less independents. And there are no cool-looking boulevards. I think that deters hipsters pretty well. Which is good. Too many hipsters, and you turn a city into a theme park. Too few, and you turn a city into either a suburb or a crime wasteland.
Last edited by MillennialUrbanist; 02-14-2017 at 10:59 AM..
The gentrifying neighborhoods all (or most) being Hispanic is interesting. I wonder what specifically attracts hipsters there. Is it the delicious food? Is it the opportunity to practice Spanish they learned in high school? (Hey, why not? ) Or it could be the traits you described. Of course, human thinking is really complex. So we'll never know for sure.
The East Garfield Park situation isn't easy. It does have a rich history of once being a vibrant Jewish neighborhood. Also the Green Line and a 24/7 bus route. What it lacks are businesses for day-to-day life, outside of fast food and whatever was carved out on the first floor of abandoned buildings. I've actually have seen the area live, when I took a "Jewish Chicago" tour with my synagogue in 2009. They drove us through areas that used to be Jewish, but not anymore: East Garfield Park, Kenwood, Lawndale, and South Shore. We even got to leave the bus in Hyde Park, which still retains its Jewish identity very well. With the exception of Hyde Park and Kenwood, the areas didn't look attractive at all, which can't be good for bringing in gentrifiers.
Most Bungalow Belt neighborhoods are pretty auto-centric, although nothing like suburbs. The businesses there are more chains, less independents. And there are no cool-looking boulevards. I think that deters hipsters pretty well. Which is good. Too many hipsters, and you turn a city into a theme park. Too few, and you turn a city into either a suburb or a crime wasteland.
I think it's their urban vibrancy and sense of being different, while not being totally unsafe. The food is part of the vibrancy, and the language part of being different, I'd reckon. Plus, Chicago's predominantly African-American neighborhoods, with a few exceptions, have suffered from decades of disinvestment and severe social, poverty, and crime problems which have made gentrification all but impossible.
East Garfield Park was not immune to this unfortunately. It might have a better chance than some others by virtue of its proximity to downtown and L access, but it's going to be a tough row to hoe, especially when you can live in Little Village for the same price and have a much better quality of life.
Hipsters have a natural aversion to anything suburban, and the bungalow belt neighborhoods, while not exburban and sprawly, are still more residential/family-centric. They don't have the density, grit, and vibrancy of the neighborhoods which have gentrified.
The gentrifying neighborhoods all (or most) being Hispanic is interesting. I wonder what specifically attracts hipsters there. Is it the delicious food? Is it the opportunity to practice Spanish they learned in high school? (Hey, why not? ) Or it could be the traits you described. Of course, human thinking is really complex. So we'll never know for sure.
It would appear that Chicago's hipsters don't like starting from scratch. Predominantly working class Hispanic and working class white neighborhoods have been the target of gentrification over the last couple of decades, and the neighborhoods selected usually have pretty good public transportation access, existing businesses and eateries, and more intact housing.
Many of Chicago's predominantly black neighborhoods have been left to languish for decades with little to no investment, however. This means few, if any, businesses, gaps in neighborhood blocks with empty lots, sometimes more limited public transportation, etc. Many are even lacking basic essentials like grocery stores.
I'm curious why you think that Chicago is trending to what NYC has become?
The socioeconomic trends in both places indicates Chicago is trending towards what NYC has become - an enclave for the wealthy and educated. There's a book entitled The Great Inversion which looks closely at this. The author is from Chicago and goes into great detail about the decline and revitalization of neighborhoods on the North Side (predominately River North, Old Town, Lincoln Park, and Lakeview, with some mention of Wicker Park and Bucktown) and compares them to neighborhoods that had declined and were revitalized in Manhattan in the latter half of the 20th century. He even talks about the "future" gentrification of Edgewater, Uptown, and Rogers Park, which as we are all in varying stages of gentrification.
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.
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.
) Or it could be the traits you described. Of course, human thinking is really complex. So we'll never know for sure.
