There are 14 mixed income developments in the city are they all having the same problems as Westhaven? (Chicago: condo, good credit)

[ajolotl]

I agree that much more time is needed for a fair assessment. I think most people seem eager for it to fail because it seems like such an improbable premise forced on us by the thought police. Personally, I have no better ideas so I agree that it needs to be compared to practical alternatives, not the ideal world.

Personally I am surrounded by too much ghettoness on a daily basis to actually voluntarily invite any more into my life. The fact that people have bought there is testimony though to the fact that the idea has some legs with some small segment of the population. I think whether this continues to be the case after word of the problems spreads will tell us a lot in the next few years.

Originally Posted by roboto

^Why dont we all just give up on everything then since the world is so terrible?

No one said it would be a utopian society, is that a joke? Its simply more practical than the alternative which was also known as the Robert Taylor Homes. That clearly didnt work so something new is being tried which seems to make more practical sense - attempting to integrate low-income/welfare cases with the rest of working society rather than isolating them and ignoring them. Of course theres skepticism, society has always had a difficult time dealing with the have-nots and incorporating them. And this may or may not be the right answer; only time will tell but at the very least its better than the alternative.

Do you have a better solution or at least something constructive to add? No, I didnt think so. People like you, at least as seen in this particular thread, usually offer nothing but hollow abstract BS and indictments of society as a whole.

[ChiMack]

where are the other mixed income developments

[roboto]

Originally Posted by lenniel

Roboto,
I'm just curious, if you think it's such a good idea, would you live there? Yep, that's what I thought....

Lenniel, Do you have a better solution on how to incorporate poor people into society and get them off welfare? Yep, thats what I thought.....



And I never said it was "such a good idea" , quit putting words in my mouth. I said it was "better than the alternative ie RT Homes", please reread my post. Plus, I already posted what I thought would be better. Welfare reform. People like you have added nothing to this discussion, just lame criticisms of people who bought into these places and the people who came up with the idea:

Originally Posted by lenniel

Venom, I'm with you. I found this sort of funny. What the hell were these people thinking when they bought into a mixed income/project building? That's just plain stupid.

You've got people working 9-5 and others getting a govt check in the mail every 2 weeks just hanging out doing nothing.

I would love for some of these liberal social scientist to put their money where their mouth in an move into one of these developments. They would last about 1 week.

Now you ask me, would I live there? Ill give you the benefit of the doubt despite your attitude displayed above and answer. Maybe, I would certainly consider it if the prices are lower than market for a nice place and the area itself was on an upswing. I already bought into where I live and that was years ago, and dont plan on moving, so clearly it wouldnt be anytime soon.

Since I have moved where I live here the area around me has gentrified and some of the projects mere blocks away are now also mixed income, others are still projects. Basically I already live in a mixed income area. So it wouldnt be a far stretch.

I think it remains to be seen wether this can be somewhat successful, while others here believe its already a failure based on their preconceived notions of what poor people are like. I have relatives in a developing nation (basically poor people) who would practically die to live in these mixed income areas, I doubt many of you have the perspective to see this.

[ChiMack]

roboto where do u live at?

[Humboldt1]

You would not buy into such a development. It does not makes sense economically. None of us willingly buy a place that we know is going to go down in value.

Some of us (myself included) were fooled into this idea of being urban pioneers and that somehow building by building we would gentrify areas and force out the riff raff. Unfortunately, even as we were improving these areas, prices were driven artificially high by mortgage fraud and appraisal fraud, which led people like myself to buy in 2006 for inflated prices, which will take 5-10 years to get back if we are lucky.

The only solution (which will not be applied) is population control among poor people.

Lenniel's and my solution is to force people to work to survive. Paying for children that people cannot afford to have does not allow this. We are subsidizing population growth among our poor population. Only thru education can we truly limit population growth among the poor (educated people have fewer kids at a later age). I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Mixed income areas are intrinsically not on an upswing. It is anti-gentrification subsidizing rents for CHA residents, kinda like section 8.

[roboto]

Originally Posted by ChiMack

roboto where do u live at?

^south loop, but more towards chinatown, by cullerton and wabash. mixed income bldg I was talking about near me are hilliard. There are others being developed by cabrini green, and altgeld gardens on the southside by 130th.

What about you, where do you live?

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

You would not buy into such a development. It does not makes sense economically. None of us willingly buy a place that we know is going to go down in value.

Some of us (myself included) were fooled into this idea of being urban pioneers and that somehow building by building we would gentrify areas and force out the riff raff. Unfortunately, even as we were improving these areas, prices were driven artificially high by mortgage fraud and appraisal fraud, which led people like myself to buy in 2006 for inflated prices, which will take 5-10 years to get back if we are lucky.

The only solution (which will not be applied) is population control among poor people.

Lenniel's and my solution is to force people to work to survive. Paying for children that people cannot afford to have does not allow this. We are subsidizing population growth among our poor population. Only thru education can we truly limit population growth among the poor (educated people have fewer kids at a later age). I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Mixed income areas are intrinsically not on an upswing. It is anti-gentrification subsidizing rents for CHA residents, kinda like section 8.

I know where I bought is now about the same. Since 2000 it went up in '03-'06, and came back down in '08-now. Economically, it is not for the short term, but Im in it for the longer term anyways and I know my area cant really go too far down unless the condo glut allows thousands of section 8 in, which I doubt.

Anyways, I would always consider any good deal. If the place is lower than market rate, and the general area has plans for new transit and other infrastructure (ie sewer, street improvements), has a business/commercial zoning plan, and has shown some general trends for improvement etc; it could be a decent long-term investment to buy. Im not rich, and I dont flip properties anyway, I just want somewhere to live like anyone else, and to consider these things like city investment is basic.

Your solutions you spoke of are similar to mine, except I will not directly say population control is the most important (though it is probably a key component). I feel everybody should work. My parents broke their back to come to this country and worked even harder here, why would I believe otherwise? I think everyone actually wants to work if given the oppurtunity and shown the benefits, and thats why welfare reform is so necessary.

Truthfully, these developments will not work if something is not done about the welfare system. It needs to be much more 'tough love', so to speak. Kick people out if they do not work, or get job training etc. No more free rides and lazyness; which IMO destroys the ambition and drive for success even for the next generations.

But, I think these mixed income developments can work in the long run in the right situation and if jobs are made a necessity for CHA residents. Children who grow up in these districts will recieve a better education than they would living in the projects, and they will be forced to learn along side the children of the condo owners etc. The higher value of the property in the area will cause higher funding for the school district also. Yes its long term, and welfare reform is necessary, but its certainly possible. That is all I am saying.

[ChiMack]

Originally Posted by roboto

I know where I bought is now about the same. Since 2000 it went up in '03-'06, and came back down in '08-now. Economically, it is not for the short term, but Im in it for the longer term anyways and I know my area cant really go too far down unless the condo glut allows thousands of section 8 in, which I doubt.

you dont think that could happen with all those condos being empty more being built and them not selling

[surlycue]

There are some mixed income townhomes south of Blackhawk on Larabee and they seem successful. I walk by them to go to Dominicks in the evenings a few nights a week. There are never crowds sitting on their stoops and bull****ting, but instead I see women tending their gardens, people walking their dogs and chatting by their fences. They are impeccable maintained and all the residents are very nice to me and my daughter when we see them. One man even helped me to lift my caddy cart over a snow bank and halfway down the block in February.

I think park of why they are succeeding is the better screening processes as well as having a totally separate residence and not sharing any common rooms, save for the firewalls between each house. There is less to bicker over this way and the middle class owners who are shelling out market rate money do not have to feel as though they have to change their lifestyles to cater to the CHA residents.

[softdev]

Sad. An example of buyer beware. And an example of how it's not public housing's fault, it's the people.

[JoeyPants]

A big reason why some of these projects came down is because they sit on prime real estate. In the 60's and 70's people were leaving the city in droves. Now with the back to the city movement and gentrification, developers want that valuable land back. I doubt City Hall or Daley really care about section 8 people. The problem is where to put them. Let's be frank, no neighborhood wants them, and virtually every Alderman would oppose locating them in their ward. CHA has been steering them to the South Side and South Suburbs, but you can only send so many until the locals put up an opposition.

So the only viable solution is to "mix them in" with the rest of the population. CHA does screen it's tenants and they have actually introduced term limits. The problem is the relatives that come to visit or illegally live with the recipients. Bottom line is that this development is poorly run. The management company is owned by a well connected shady slumlord/developer, Elzie Higginbottom. This guy raises big bucks for local politicians, including Daley. He doesn't care because he gets paid either way, so he has no incentive to do a better job. Chicago politics at it's finest.