What areas to invest in for real estate? (Brighton, Bridgeport: crime, home) - Chicago - Illinois (IL) - Page 6 - City-Data Forum

TBideon · 11-20-2017, 02:13 PM

How does Woodlawn have more potential than Kenwood?

And Lawndale??? Yeesh, I don't know about that place. Other than Douglas Park/Riot Fest and Lagunitas, why on earth would anyone venture there. Even Little Village has significant crime, and that neighborhood is dramatically safer than Lawndale.

South Shore is a bit of a heart breaker. From the jewel of the southside to the usual destructive elements. Just a shame. I suppose some of the gated areas are nice enough, plus the Cultural Center and golf course are unique amenities. But man, that's about it.

Chicagoland60426 · 11-20-2017, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRU67

Crime in Chicagoland -- chicagotribune.com

Chatham - 6th out of 77 Community Areas in violent crime, 11th in property crime, and 14th in quality of life crime

South Shore - 11th in violent, 9th in property, and 21st in quality of life

West Pullman - 20th in violent, 43rd in property, and 17th in quality of life

Morgan Park - 42nd in violent, 23rd in property, and 24th in quality of life

West Chesterfield - Part of Chatham. See above

Kenwood - 23rd in violent, 24th in property, 34th in quality of life

Oakland - 29th in violent, 37th in property, 29th in quality of life.

So these are some relatively high crime areas you're recommending. All of them are in the top half in at least two broad category of crime. And one of them - Chatham - is currently the 6th most violent community area in the City. And alarmingly, all but Kenwood and Oakland are in the top 25 in quality of life crimes - and even those two are in the top half.

So what is it about them that you would recommend to somebody like the original poster? Perhaps an outstanding amount of amenities which would override the crime issues? I personally would need a little more convincing before investing in one of these areas, and I am completely open to diversity.

42nd out of 77 community areas isn't that bad. That means the violent crime rate during the given time frame (last 30 days) is less than over half of the other Chicago communities with higher rates, including tourist destination such as Armour Square(34th in violent crime) and even the loop(15th).

BRU67 · 11-20-2017, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

42nd out of 77 community areas isn't that bad. That means the violent crime rate during the given time frame (last 30 days) is less than over half of the other Chicago communities with higher rates, including tourist destination such as Armour Square(34th in violent crime) and even the loop(15th).

I agree. Morgan Park did well in that category. The standout among this group. But it's very far southwest (even south of Beverly), which would make it unsuitable for someone looking to live near the Loop. You're looking at about an hour to the Loop on public transit. At that point we may as well look at Berwyn, which is cheaper and much closer. Plus, it's 23rd in property and 24th in quality of life crimes, which isn't that good. And Morgan Park was about 30% white as of the last Census, so it's by far the most diverse of this group. Kenwood was 2nd at 16% white and Pullman 3rd at 7%. The others are over 90% African-American - Chatham was 97% AA and South Shore and Oakland around 95%.

BRU67 · 11-20-2017, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBideon

How does Woodlawn have more potential than Kenwood?

And Lawndale??? Yeesh, I don't know about that place. Other than Douglas Park/Riot Fest and Lagunitas, why on earth would anyone venture there. Even Little Village has significant crime, and that neighborhood is dramatically safer than Lawndale.

South Shore is a bit of a heart breaker. From the jewel of the southside to the usual destructive elements. Just a shame. I suppose some of the gated areas are nice enough, plus the Cultural Center and golf course are unique amenities. But man, that's about it.

I'd do North Lawndale, but only east of California. That isn't an overly big area, and competition for property over there is keen right now because everyone thinks that area's going to become the next Logan Square due to Riot Fest and Lagunitas. Property outside that area in NL may as well be bolted to the showroom floor.

OyCrumbler · 11-20-2017, 05:41 PM

My guesses for places that are fairly inexpensive now and have a decent chance of changing are:

- East Garfield Park
- Little Village
- Douglas/Bronzeville
- Bridgeport
- McKinley Park
- Kenwood
- Woodlawn
- Washington Park

These are mostly fairly inexpensive and they hinge on transit connections to mostly the Loop and adjacent neighborhoods or tied to Hyde Park and its growth.

TBideon · 11-20-2017, 06:15 PM

It used to be follow the gays and artists, as they were the first to take risks living and investing in cheap, rough neighborhoods. Now it's follow the Asians, specifically along Archer. They've helped stabilize Bridgeport (which never fell that hard) after the rough 80s and 90s, and are doing the same for McKinley Park. Next up, Brighton Park.

Hell, Bronzeville has a large Asian population too, which is adding much to the neighborhood's livability and momentum.

Slats Grobnick · 11-21-2017, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fighting Fungus

That is a good point, that being said all the people I know who got rich off real estate bought in places that were aboout to change. Areas such as wicker park, ukrainian village, rogers park. They bought these properties in the 80s and 90s. I would never invest in places like Lakeview, Lincoln Park. Even Avondale, Pilsen, Humboldt park are too expensive for me to invest in. I am willing to pay 50k a unit if they need work and 70k tops if they are in good shape. Also, I will not buy in a majority black neighborhood.

Not going to happen, at least not without a real estate crash.

OyCrumbler · 11-21-2017, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBideon

It used to be follow the gays and artists, as they were the first to take risks living and investing in cheap, rough neighborhoods. Now it's follow the Asians, specifically along Archer. They've helped stabilize Bridgeport (which never fell that hard) after the rough 80s and 90s, and are doing the same for McKinley Park. Next up, Brighton Park.

Hell, Bronzeville has a large Asian population too, which is adding much to the neighborhood's livability and momentum.

If that’s the case, they should sprinkle more Asians around the city! Does it work faster if it’s gay Asian artists?

BRU67 · 11-21-2017, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

My guesses for places that are fairly inexpensive now and have a decent chance of changing are:

- East Garfield Park

These are mostly fairly inexpensive and they hinge on transit connections to mostly the Loop and adjacent neighborhoods or tied to Hyde Park and its growth.

Well c'mon then guys! I've been watching multi-units in several neighborhoods for awhile now and I've only seen just two in EGP go under contract. Two. 2. Duo. Something goes up in Pilsen and even east Little Village and it is gone by the following weekend in a bidding frenzy. In EGP they just sit there, despite the message board love saying this place is it.

So those of you who think EGP's gonna be hot, step right up! There's never been a better time than now. They'll (sellers) will leave the light on for 'ya

TBideon · 11-21-2017, 07:17 AM

Pilsen and Little Village, even at their worst, were low income working class neighborhoods with predominantly two-parent households, small businesses, and an existing vibrancy and stability. At its worst, EGP was and perhaps is a warzone compared to most western world cities that embodies the worst of poor American neighborhoods. It fell dramatically harder than Pilsen and LV, and frankly LV still has a significant gang presence - Pilsen is miles ahead in terms of neighborhood safety, diversity, momentum, etc - and I just don't see the value in investing there unless you're very shrewd.