Gentrification speading from Core: South Side & West Side (Chicago: low income, neighborhoods)

[prhill]

JTE1969 I would settle for a one bedroom for 750 like a friend of mine has in the burbs. You would think with the bad reputation the city has now along with the fact that people keep leaving that rents would go down instead of up

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Lots of old housing is missing. That explains all the vacant lots.

True this. People unfamiliar don't realize how scary and crappy vacant lots make a block seem. It isn't like poor neighborhoods are just filled with beautiful homes waiting for a few good hipsters to come in and turn it all around. Neighborhoods in Austin, North Lawndale and Englewood look absolutely awful, which deters even the most ardent "urban pioneer," especially when there are other cheap options which are much less banged up.

This is why I think most of our impoverished south and west side neighborhoods will have trouble gentrifying naturally. The City will have to do some kind of massive urban renewal project involving eminent domain, along the lines with what was done with the Cabrini Green.

So to go to the original question, I'd look for intact and stable but presently down or under the radar neighborhoods to be the ones to change through gentrification. Humboldt Park, McKinley Park, west Pilsen/Heart of Chicago, and Little Village are the ones which right now seem like obvious candidates.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by BRU67

True this. People unfamiliar don't realize how scary and crappy vacant lots make a block seem. It isn't like poor neighborhoods are just filled with beautiful homes waiting for a few good hipsters to come in and turn it all around. Neighborhoods in Austin, North Lawndale and Englewood look absolutely awful, which deters even the most ardent "urban pioneer," especially when there are other cheap options which are much less banged up.

This is why I think most of our impoverished south and west side neighborhoods will have trouble gentrifying naturally. The City will have to do some kind of massive urban renewal project involving eminent domain, along the lines with what was done with the Cabrini Green.

So to go to the original question, I'd look for intact and stable but presently down or under the radar neighborhoods to be the ones to change through gentrification. Humboldt Park, McKinley Park, west Pilsen/Heart of Chicago, and Little Village are the ones which right now seem like obvious candidates.

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.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist

Oh I see. I thought "infrastructure" only referred to road and rail, utilities, and public venues. But this makes sense. The only bad part about the new construction is that it will most likely be those generic red brick condos, a far cry from ornate limestone facades you see all over Kenwood and Hyde Park (that presumably used to exist in Bronzeville too).

Based on the developers building in the area, I think there's a greater likelihood of more modern infill, which I think is a good thing. You can't affordably recreate the classic buildings, so what goes in should be modern in my opinion. I don't advocate tearing down historic structures to build modern, but if you're starting from scratch they should be of this era, not some past one.

In these examples, you may or may not like these particular designs but they're not trashy and they're not pretending to be historic, they're just good, solid contemporary urban homes.

Like this:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/46.../home/44640201


Or this:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/48...home/112880113

[MillennialUrbanist]

Originally Posted by emathias

Based on the developers building in the area, I think there's a greater likelihood of more modern infill, which I think is a good thing. You can't affordably recreate the classic buildings, so what goes in should be modern in my opinion. I don't advocate tearing down historic structures to build modern, but if you're starting from scratch they should be of this era, not some past one.

Those actually look pretty nice.

Also, I looked at Kenwood on Google Maps, and saw some modern buildings there too. Unlike your examples, their facades are real limestone with some ornate elements. The buildings don't look as beautiful as their 100-year-old neighbors, but unless you're an architect or a history buff, they're similar enough, and they actually blend in pretty well.

How do you tell a historic replica from the real McCoy? Look at the sides of the building. Replicas are generally made of cinder block or simple red brick, while real ones are always made of Chicago common brick (the reddish brown brick you see in all pre-WWII areas). Windows on the building are an easy giveaway: old wooden windows vs. the obvious Pella windows (renovations can trip you up, though).
Real McCoy: https://goo.gl/maps/im4SGe14xC82
Replica: https://goo.gl/maps/RaJXcmQWqtq

[emathias]

Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist

Those actually look pretty nice.

Also, I looked at Kenwood on Google Maps, and saw some modern buildings there too. Unlike your examples, their facades are real limestone with some ornate elements. The buildings don't look as beautiful as their 100-year-old neighbors, but unless you're an architect or a history buff, they're similar enough, and they actually blend in pretty well.

How do you tell a historic replica from the real McCoy? Look at the sides of the building. Replicas are generally made of cinder block or simple red brick, while real ones are always made of Chicago common brick (the reddish brown brick you see in all pre-WWII areas). Windows on the building are an easy giveaway: old wooden windows vs. the obvious Pella windows (renovations can trip you up, though).
Real deal: https://goo.gl/maps/im4SGe14xC82
Replica: https://goo.gl/maps/RaJXcmQWqtq

I didn't say they *couldn't* be recreated, I just said they can't be recreated affordably. The closer they look to the real McCoy, the less affordable they are. Obviously there is still a market for unaffordable homes - the'y re not unaffordable for everyone - but the market is smaller, especially in an area still considered a bit of a gamble.

[MillennialUrbanist]

Originally Posted by emathias

I didn't say they *couldn't* be recreated, I just said they can't be recreated affordably. The closer they look to the real McCoy, the less affordable they are. Obviously there is still a market for unaffordable homes - the'y re not unaffordable for everyone - but the market is smaller, especially in an area still considered a bit of a gamble.

I wasn't saying they could or couldn't. I just wanted to give public anonymous compliment to the builders, for putting in effort to blend in with the neighborhood. As opposed to constructing a generic condo in an old neighborhood, to take advantage of the property value boost that its history provides. Your examples aren't like that at all. Those modern buildings actually do a good job of blending in with their pre-existing surroundings.

[beaniemac]

Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist

How so? Bronzeville seems to have plenty of infrastructure. There are historic buildings, there's a Metra Electric station, there's the Green Line, there are parks and the lakefront. What's exactly missing?

yeah, but they lacking in big box stores, shopping and overall retail. I mean they JUST got a walmart, and that is a neighborhood walmart which is tiny. hyde park got a target, but it is miniscule. I have both of those store within a 5 minute drive of my house and they are both full-sized.

also bronzeville doesn't have enough grocery options for my taste. yes, they FINALLY got mariano's, and they have a ****ty jewel, but I'd like to see them have more like food-4-less and/or trader joes and aldi's.

[beaniemac]

Originally Posted by emathias

Based on the developers building in the area, I think there's a greater likelihood of more modern infill, which I think is a good thing. You can't affordably recreate the classic buildings, so what goes in should be modern in my opinion. I don't advocate tearing down historic structures to build modern, but if you're starting from scratch they should be of this era, not some past one.

In these examples, you may or may not like these particular designs but they're not trashy and they're not pretending to be historic, they're just good, solid contemporary urban homes.

Like this:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/46.../home/44640201


Or this:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/48...home/112880113

I have driven down this street, and what the picture fails to convey is directly across the street are apartment building with characters hanging out. I'll be dammed if I spend 500K on a home, and I have that element present.

[TBideon]

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.