Reputation of Oakland/Kenwood (Chicago, Washington: renter, crime, coop)

[DMooreMBAJD]

I recently looked at several places at 40th and Drexel and at 44th and Drexel. Loved the units but would like to get some additional feedback regarding the area. How far along would you estimate the gentrification has progressed?

[AQUEMINI331]

I guess it depends on what the definition of Oakwood/Kenwood is. Someone mentioned Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan living there, and if I'm not mistaken, both of their places are south of 47th. I thought 47th was the dividing line between Oakwood/Kenwood/Bronzeville and Hyde Park? I wouldn't consider anything south of 47th to be part of Oakwood, but then again I'm not a native Chicagoan.


BTW..................whatever real estate salesman told you that that was the "South Loop" is full of it. The South Loop stops at McCormick Place/Chinatown/Interstate 55, and even the apartment that I used to live in over in Bronzeville that was off of 31st Street was considered "Bronzeville" and NOT the South Loop. It's nothing more than a marketing ploy - South Loop is a definite up-and-coming area, and as the name implies, is really just an extension of downtown. Oakwood, as others have mentioned, is an up-and-coming neighborhood but is still rough around the edges. If you don't mind a little grit and urban life (i.e. still a couple of bums walking around and still a few isolated incidents of violent crime and property crime taking place in the neighborhood), and understand that given current market conditions, the neighborhood will NOT be like this in 10 or even 5 years and that you could stand to make a huge return on your investment, I say go for it. However, if you're a stereotypical yuppie who just absolutely has to have absolute, or at least close to absolute, safety in your community with almost zero threat of any crazy stuff going down, the kind that's typical of city life, then I say head for the Gold Coast or the Loop and don't bother to venture south of I-55, at least not for another 10 years or so. Of course by then real estate prices down here on the South Side will probably be sky high, so..................all in all, it's a matter of preference.

Oakland/Kenwood? Bring some money! There are a few condos in Kenwood and some new construction in Oakland. The area is surprisingly diverse ethnically and economically for the south side. Because, like Hyde Park, the described area is subject to realtor's whimsical boundary descriptions, you may wanna constrict your search to Drexel to the lake, 43rd to 51st street. Most of the rapid trans offerings are for residents south of 47th street but on-street parking is available in Oakland and Kenwood. The UC police now patrol Oakland in addition to Hyde Park, Kenwood and Woodlawn. Living in Oakland is not pioneering -- the place is pretty stable. There are some very nice townhomes near 45th east of Drexel. There is also new construction right around 39th and Drexel.

Check to see if your condo listing is for a place less than 800 east. If so, you are probably not in Oakland. The condos on Cottage Grove from 39th to 47th are for people really taking looking at the long run.

I guess with this being said, we need an official definition of "Oakwood" and/or "Kenwood". Wouldn't hurt for him to know exactly what constitutes "Bronzeville" and "Hyde Park" either.


Everything I was saying about "Oakwood" or "Kenwood" basically applies to the areas north of 47th, east of King, south of 31st, and west of the lake. South of 47th, as was mentioned, is pretty nice. But I was talking about a neighborhood that's more run down, rough around the edges, but very much gentrifying. Hell, it's on the lake. I predict that in about 20 years every piece of property in the city of Chicago, from Evanston and Rogers Park on down through the South Shore through about 83rd Street or so, will be middle-to-upper-income communities. The lake is too valuable of a resource for it not to be used for higher-end residential and/or commerical developments. I know people are tired of paying high ass prices to live near the lake on the North Side, eventually somebody's gotta come down to the South Side and realize they can get twice the space for half the price, and be right on the lake! The same lake that's on the North Side too, it's not like Lake Michigan down here is any less pleasant during the summertime, it's not like we don't have beaches and parks down here on the South Side either.


With that being said I think over the next 5-10 years the South Shore (starting from 71st Street on down to about 83rd Street or so) will become what Bronzeville is now - a formerly downtrodden neighborhood that will quickly gentrify. South Shore is already decent, but I have to admit it can get a little violent down there and crime is more on par with an average South Side neighborhood as opposed to a typical North Side neighborhood. I really can't wait for that to happen though, the South Shore has a LOT of great architecture and beautiful homes and high rise apartments. Not to mention the history - back in the early-to-mid 20th century it was the home of Chicago's black elite and middle class. It's such an untapped market with huge potential IMO. What do you all think?


_

[lpdoxey]

Originally Posted by AQUEMINI331

I guess it depends on what the definition of Oakwood/Kenwood is. Someone mentioned Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan living there, and if I'm not mistaken, both of their places are south of 47th. I thought 47th was the dividing line between Oakwood/Kenwood/Bronzeville and Hyde Park? I wouldn't consider anything south of 47th to be part of Oakwood, but then again I'm not a native Chicagoan.

_

The Oakland and North Kenwood area officially runs from 39th to 47th street from Cottage Grove to the lake. The southern half of Kenwood officially runs from 47th st. to 51st. from Drexel to the lake. Hyde Park starts at 51st street.

[AQUEMINI331]

OK well then that's the defintion we need to work with. If that's the official definition then I would say that Kenwood is OK but Oakland is gentrifying while still a little rough around the edges. But as i said before, I really think someone who invests in that area now could end up making a killing if they sell about 5-10 years down the road.


_

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by AQUEMINI331

OK well then that's the defintion we need to work with. If that's the official definition then I would say that Kenwood is OK but Oakland is gentrifying while still a little rough around the edges. But as i said before, I really think someone who invests in that area now could end up making a killing if they sell about 5-10 years down the road.


_

Entirely possible. Thinking of looking at Kenwood, Woodlawn and the South Shore instead of South Loop for investment property.

[AQUEMINI331]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Entirely possible. Thinking of looking at Kenwood, Woodlawn and the South Shore instead of South Loop for investment property.

Exactly what I've been saying. Large parts of the South Side are now ripe for gentrification and future investment. People down here need to learn to capitalize on the assets that we have - you know, like the lake..............and the beaches.............and the parks, and the historic architecture, etc. The South Side has a lot to offer but to the average suburbanite or North Sider, it's an entirely different world that is unknown to them.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if you're from the South Side, the North Side might as well be Minneapolis, and if you're from the North Side, the South Side might as well be Detroit. If Chicago wants to truly grow and thrive, it has to realize that the wealth and economic prosperity experienced on the North Side can be enjoyed on the South Side as well, we have everything that they have up there, it just hasn't been capitalized upon yet. But when it is, watch out. If we get the Olympics in 2016, there could be untold amounts of development on the South Side (particularly areas closer to the lake) all the way down to 83rd Street by then, if the market stays strong (and I believe it will). I see nothing but blue skies and brighter days for the South Side, I really do.

_

[lpdoxey]

Exactly, I've always said if they really got the Kenwood/North Kenwood area together it would by far rival even the likes of Lincoln Park/Old Town. Even some parts of Bronzeville, South Shore, and WoodLawn are absolutely amazing and its a shame that alot of people are ignorant of the history and architecture that runs abound in those area. - I can't even imagine how those area's looked back in there heyday. But like you said people need to realize the potential of the area and get in now, because people are realizing how much of a treasure those neighborhoods are and by then it will be too late!

[AQUEMINI331]

Yeah, the first time I went to Chicago, I went to the South Side but I never went south of 47th street. I saw the mansions on King Drive going from about 35th streets to about 43rd, and based off of that I thought the South Side was the more affluent side of town!

_

[westender]

The South Side was the more affluent side of town. Emphasis on WAS.

South Kenwood (which is 47th to 51st, Drexel to the Lake) is still affluent. Many, if not most, homes there are mansions. Many long-resident families have been there since the 1920s. Many newer, wealthy black families also. These estates are not and never have been cheap, even in the 1970s. I lived at 48th & Kimbark in my early 20s and had no troubles walking around at all hours. Also lived in Hyde Park (several locations), which in my opinion was slightly more dicey but relatively safe. Hyde Park runs from 51st to 60th Streets, Cottage Grove to the Lake.

North Kenwood is completely different. Not sure where Oakland and Bronzeville end and North Kenwood begins, but generally everything from State Street east to the Lake between IIT (35th Street) and 47th Street is still worrisome. I would not live in that area. South Shore and Woodlawn (southeast and southwest of Hyde Park) have IMHO a higher likelihood of recovery than do Oakland and Bronzeville.

Also unlikely to improve is Englewood, which is a large area west of Hyde Park. Some of these areas "turned" in the 1940s, some in the 1950s: they have been truly poor for 50+ years.

[Milliano]

I agree with lpdoxey... to me that area seems prime that it could develop massively if a few things went its way.

People with hidden agendas seem to talk about every poor neighborhood in Chicago as gentrifying, and I think most of them are going to stay poor - but while I don't really know **** about Chicago, if I was going to invest real estate, just on face value, I'd guess by far the biggest jump in the coming years might be Grand Boulevard by Kenwood. The natural and artificial geography of the area calls for it IMO

Originally Posted by westender

South Shore and Woodlawn (southeast and southwest of Hyde Park) have IMHO a higher likelihood of recovery than do Oakland and Bronzeville.

Why do you say that? I mean what does Woodlawn have, besides a huge amount of empty lots? I'm sure I'm missing something but I don't see the recovery possibility in Woodlawn, especially (x100!!!) not over Oakland or Bronzeville!