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.
When they announced the plans for the Englewood store, they discussed the fact that they may have lower prices on some things. They also said they would focus more on their store brand and on bulk dry goods, both of which tend to be relatively cheap. I haven't been there to see if they've followed through on this, but if they have, I can see that being something that would quite easily draw people from other neighborhoods.
the englewood whole foods is cheaper than the other ones I have been to. there was actually an article about this.
I hope the south and south west sides do not "gentrify" if that means continued displacement of blacks and latinos with "yuppie" middle and upper income white people. People like to laud the effects of gentrification - saying that it mends urban blight. Even going so far as to use the word "pioneer" to describe those brave enough to set roots down in neighborhoods inhabited by minorities.
Does anyone even pause to think about why any of these neighborhoods are so cheap to begin with? There is a story behind all of these "bargain rents" for the upwardly mobile yuppie. Namely mortage redlining and racist housing covenants that pushed blacks and latinxs into the south and southwestern parts of the city.
The problem with gentrification is that it doesn't benefit all demographics that live within a neighborhood going through such changes. In the context of an American city like Chicago, gentrification is merely the geographic re-location of wealth from the suburbs to the inner city. Gentrification does nothing to mitigate social or economic inequity - (i.e. income inequality or marginalization of minorities and the working poor). Marginalized peoples are simply moved elsewhere. Sounds eerily similar to the story of pioneers and the native american peoples doesn't it?
Which brings me to my criticism of the word "pioneer" to describe someone who moves into one of these neighborhoods. Why is this word so problematic? >.<
Well think about the historic use of that word in the US...."pioneers" came out west to settle in new lands (or in this case a south side neighborhood of Chicago), lands that were already inhabited by other people (now think Chicago blacks and Latinxs in this case). And the newcomers think the inhabitants already living in the area "don't really know how live" - and the newcomers set about "improving the area."
Now I don't have any qualms with many of the improvements to urban neighborhoods that white gentrifiers bring about (e.g. denser housing, efforts to maintain property and neighborhood amenities). What does irk me is that the original inhabitants don't even stand to benefit from many of the changes because they are forced to relocate somewhere cheaper. It is primarily the wealthier newcomers who benefit from gentrification.
And the stipulations by the city government to set aside "x" amount of units as affordable housing or put "x" amount of $ into the affordable housing fund is such a piecemeal way of trying to help keep existing communities intact.
I hope the south and south west sides do not "gentrify" if that means continued displacement of blacks and latinos with "yuppie" middle and upper income white people. People like to laud the effects of gentrification - saying that it mends urban blight. Even going so far as to use the word "pioneer" to describe those brave enough to set roots down in neighborhoods inhabited by minorities
The African Americans who are leaving Chicago en masse aren't doing so because of gentrification though. Studies have been done regarding Chicago and gentrification, and unlike cities like NYC and DC, majority black neighborhoods in Chicago frankly don't gentrify. Latinos and working class whites were the most likely groups to be affected. That isn't to say that no African Americans have been gentrified out of their neighborhoods, but it does highlight a significant difference between Chicago and elsewhere.
Additionally, the South and West Sides aren't at risk of gentrifying out any time soon. Chicago's population growth is stagnant precisely because those with means who are moving to Chicago are moving primarily to the already more affluent North Side while large sections of the South and West Sides continue to hemorrhage people. Chicago doesn't receive enough immigrants like other cities in the country, or like Chicago did itself in the 90s, to balance out its high domestic out migration.
The African Americans who are leaving Chicago en masse aren't doing so because of gentrification though. Studies have been done regarding Chicago and gentrification, and unlike cities like NYC and DC, majority black neighborhoods in Chicago frankly don't gentrify. Latinos and working class whites were the most likely groups to be affected. That isn't to say that no African Americans have been gentrified out of their neighborhoods, but it does highlight a significant difference between Chicago and elsewhere.
Additionally, the South and West Sides aren't at risk of gentrifying out any time soon. Chicago's population growth is stagnant precisely because those with means who are moving to Chicago are moving primarily to the already more affluent North Side while large sections of the South and West Sides continue to hemorrhage people. Chicago doesn't receive enough immigrants like other cities in the country, or like Chicago did itself in the 90s, to balance out its high domestic out migration.
Impoverished black communities throughout the country are often the last to gentrify. I can't think of any other than the southwestern part of Oakland, CA. Bronzeville and Woodlawn may flip here in Chicago.
Funny how the study overlooked that two community areas in Chicago already that were over 40% black or with a black majority for the 2000 census now have a white plurality with both a sizeable black and Asian percentage: The Near West side and Near Southside. Even the Douglas Community (North Bronzeville) has started to shift in demographics, from over 85% to 71% black(slightly above what The Near Southside during 2000 census), as of 2014. That part of Bronzeville is about as black American as Pilsen is Mexican. The major difference is Bronzeville still has a lot of vacant lots, which is common in impoverished mostly black communities in Chicago
Also a simple observation would suggest that largely Asian areas on the southside are either virtually uneffected by shifting demographics(especially becoming more white) gentrification. Chinatown or Armour Square are just as close to downtown as the aforementioned Black/Mexican communities, yet still maintains a very strong Asian/Chinese identity. In fact Armour Square has become more Asian since 2000 census to now representing over 70% while Chinatown itself is near 90%. Bridgeport to its west is 35% Asian and McKinley Park is near 20%. They have started to do what Blacks and Hispanics did decades ago and we might see an Asian belt forming within this area on the southside.
Funny how the study overlooked that two community areas in Chicago already that were over 40% black or with a black majority for the 2000 census now have a white plurality with both a sizeable black and Asian percentage: The Near West side and Near Southside.
It was probably overlooked it because it's meaningless insofar as a study of traditional gentrification is concerned. In 2000, the Near South Side had a population of only 9,700 people. By 2010 that was up to 21,400 people. And it was at 6,800 in 1990 before any significant residential development began there.
So this white plurality was not caused by Caucasian artists and students moving into a traditional African-American neighborhood for cheap rents and starting a gentrification process. Rather, it was caused by already affluent whites moving into the swank new condos and lofts built on or converted from empty or former industrial property so they could live close to their high paying professional jobs in the Loop with some urban grit (held in check by the indoor parking garage, doorman, and security cameras of course!).
The Near West Side is a little bit closer of an argument but still not quite a cigar. That already had a significant residential population pre-1990 and a lot of the African-Americans have been and continue to be pushed out (or are fleeing the crime like they are in other areas). But that too was spurred by the development of vacant or industrial land in the West Loop aimed at wealthy mostly white Loop-based professionals, as well as development and growth by UIC.
Change only recently spread into areas traditionally occupied by African-Americans maybe 10 years ago or so. Long after the "artificial changes" had been set in motion. And even that movement is pretty tentative compared to what's going on in, say, Pilsen - which is more of a textbook example of gentrification.
I definitely see white kids walking from the Blue Line and heading west of Western now. You wouldn't have seen that a decade ago. But they are almost always UIC students who were drawn by the cheaper rent over there compared to east of Western. There's no organic movement of hipsters into that area, or any cool things sprouting up to do. It's strictly bedroom.
Funny how the study overlooked that two community areas in Chicago already that were over 40% black or with a black majority for the 2000 census now have a white plurality with both a sizeable black and Asian percentage: The Near West side and Near Southside. Even the Douglas Community (North Bronzeville) has started to shift in demographics, from over 85% to 71% black(slightly above what The Near Southside during 2000 census), as of 2014. That part of Bronzeville is about as black American as Pilsen is Mexican. The major difference is Bronzeville still has a lot of vacant lots, which is common in impoverished mostly black communities in Chicago
Also a simple observation would suggest that largely Asian areas on the southside are either virtually uneffected by shifting demographics(especially becoming more white) gentrification. Chinatown or Armour Square are just as close to downtown as the aforementioned Black/Mexican communities, yet still maintains a very strong Asian/Chinese identity. In fact Armour Square has become more Asian since 2000 census to now representing over 70% while Chinatown itself is near 90%. Bridgeport to its west is 35% Asian and McKinley Park is near 20%. They have started to do what Blacks and Hispanics did decades ago and we might see an Asian belt forming within this area on the southside.
I would think that the Asians moving into Bridgeport, McKinley Park, Douglas/Bronzeville, and Canaryville are at least a bit wealthier than the groups already there, so technically this would be gentrification, just not the stereotypical wealthy whites replacing poor blacks or Hispanics.
It will be interesting to see what Bridgeport looks like down the road. The working class whites will die off, Hispanics are moving southwest, and Asians are increasingly moving in. Will hipster whites replace the working class whites? Will it gentrify in the Logan Square/West Town sense or to a much lesser extent with an Asian majority?
I think you have a skewed viewpoint to the age vs ethnicity demographics in Bridgeport. Check out the 'Relative Ethno-Racial Composition by Age' chart on this link: http://statisticalatlas.com/neighbor...osition-by-age
The majority Asian population (34.4% vs 33.7% white) is heavily weighted in the 45-54 age group. While it's true the white population dominates from 55 all the way up to 85+, I think its an important stat that whites are dominate as well from ages 25-29 and 30-34 (and then equal numbers at 35-44). These are the young professionals and the first time home owners and young families (and 55-85 being the old timer home owners of course.) Ages 24 and under are all Asian majority and I would think this is less first generation immigrant weighted than in previous generations. In my view these are also dominated by young professionals and young families (with a lot more babies) who have more recently moved out of their parent's house to rent in the neighborhood or are currently living with their parents (that majority demographic of 45-54 which is Asian).
My point is, the younger white hipster/artist/college student types are not really making the impact in these numbers as in other areas like Pilsen and the hipster highway - it's more young professional, first time home owners that have been taking advantage of good real estate prices in a safe neighborhood near downtown. It's the same with the younger populations of Asians they are finding it a good place to rent for young families and also take advantage of their parent's multi-flats from the last generation.
Rises in home ownership in Bridgeport is most evident in the recent surge in real estate and this phase very well might be behind us now as prices are peaking and caught up with other neighborhoods. Whoever got in and snagged a good deal on a home in the past few years (whites 25-34, apparently) will certainly be the next generation so in that regard I don't see the white population of Bridgeport being diminished anytime soon. Also, the new development Bridgeport Village along the river is almost exclusively rich-white with $800k+ new homse so there is that aspect of the neighborhood going on as well.
Also you'll notice in any block by block charts that Asians predominately hold just the Northeast corner of the neighborhood which is just spilled over from Chinatown. Armour Square is considered a sub-area of Bridgeport and this is where you'll also find the higher numbers of Asians that influence these types of statistics and trends. White and Hispanic populations are much more evenly distributed around Bridgeport.. area wise it would appear to easily be majority White/Hispanic if not for the Northeast corner/Armour Square
Also you'll notice in any block by block charts that Asians predominately hold just the Northeast corner of the neighborhood which is just spilled over from Chinatown. Armour Square is considered a sub-area of Bridgeport and this is where you'll also find the higher numbers of Asians that influence these types of statistics and trends. White and Hispanic populations are much more evenly distributed around Bridgeport.. area wise it would appear to easily be majority White/Hispanic if not for the Northeast corner/Armour Square
As of the 2010 census, and I imagine the Chinese population has only been growing since then, in the Bridgeport area, north of 31st averages over half asian. Between 31st and 35th average between 1/4 and 1/3 asian. Between 35th and Pershing was between 15% and 20% asian. The area around UIC is also about 1/4 asian and the north part of Bronzeville average between 15-30% asian depending on the block. And most of the edge areas near Chinatown grew their asian population by more than 100% between 2000 and 2010, while hispanics and white population declined in those areas.
In the inner Central Area, which I'll define as Chicago Ave, Halsted St, the Lake, and, say, 18th Street, asian population averages about 15%, with triple-digit percentage growth across the board between 2000 and 2010. Argyle Street area is only about 15% asian. The North Park area is about 1/4 asian. Devon Ave area is about 1/3 asian, although I imagine that's mostly South Asian and not East Asian. Interestingly, the edge areas of Naperville - the parts that have grown the most recently, are 15-30% asian, again probably mostly South Asian.
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.
