CHICAGO | General Developments

[pilsenarch]

I agree with most of all Lou is saying and would only add that I think being the only significant urban destination in the center of the north american continent combined with a slowly (very slowly) evolving reputation from al capone and michael jordan to surprisingly beautiful and clean city by an almost ocean-sized lake, the home of Barack, and maybe the future home of same museum and Lucas will continue to feed our ever-increasing tourist trade...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

I don't want to play down Chicago's segregation problems, but one of the reasons for NYC, LA, Miami, etc's continued growth while we slumped, is that they are all major ports of entry. They all have a much larger percentage of foreign born residents than we do and NYC's foreign born pop is larger than Chicago's total.

As a whole yes, though surprisingly Manhattan and Chicago have about the same percentage of foreign born population. A lot of immigrants have gone to areas like Queens which is about 50% foreign born now.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

That was true for 19th century transport modes, but no longer. Not much freight gets transferred from lake boats to boxcars any more. Though Chicago's rôle as a classic entrepôt had a long tail—big rail classification yards, O'Hare as a multicarrier hub, option trading at the Board of Trade—there's no longer any geographic reason for any of those, just inertia. Chicago's raison d'être escapes to places with cheaper land, lower labor costs, better weather or scenery, more emphasis on education.

You might as well say there is no longer a reason for Manhattan to be such an important and valuable place, just inertia, since nobody ships anything to and from New York any more.

The point is, a city becomes important for some reason, infrastructure is built around it, then that infrastructure itself ensures that city's importance for future generations, even if the reason for that infrastructure's existence at that location is no longer evident.

Chicago became the home of one of the world's busiest airports because at the time people were building airports, Chicago was one of the biggest and most important cities in North America (a title that persists, of course, but with changing roles), plus its central location. Atlanta wasn't even on anyone's radar.

Now, of course, we have the sunbelt cities, Texas cities, etc. But O'Hare is here, and it's not going anywhere. The highway and freight rail system is here, it's not going anywhere. The high speed cable wires that use these existing ROWs are just the newest addition to the infrastructure network that continues to give Chicago importance.

[ardecila]

Well, people making cross country trips were accustomed to a layover in Chicago from the rail days. Propeller planes couldn't make the NY-LA or NY-SF trip without a refueling stop, and Chicago was just the likely spot for that to occur. That's why Municipal Airport/Midway held the title of world's busiest in an earlier era.

The arrival of jet planes meant that coast-to-coast trips didn't need a layover, and Chicago with its new, massive hub airport at O'Hare became more of a regional hub, connecting the interior to the coasts. The decline of ORD from its world's-busiest title only happened because of a conscious decision among airlines and FAA planners to decentralize and fund huge new hubs in Denver, Dallas and Atlanta.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

That was true for 19th century transport modes, but no longer. Not much freight gets transferred from lake boats to boxcars any more. Though Chicago's rôle as a classic entrepôt had a long tail—big rail classification yards, O'Hare as a multicarrier hub, option trading at the Board of Trade—there's no longer any geographic reason for any of those, just inertia. Chicago's raison d'être escapes to places with cheaper land, lower labor costs, better weather or scenery, more emphasis on education.

Besides the transportation hubs you mention we have 1 other thing that will be crucial....FRESH WATER. Cheap and abundant water is going to be very important....and we should really work to protect it.

[Mr Downtown]

^That's true, but I don't think it will become terribly relevant for a couple more centuries.

[Chi-Sky21]

You are going to see a lot of areas clamoring to tap the great lakes waters sooner than you think. Luckily there seems to already be organizations in place to help prevent this..but all parties need to stay strong and resist outside pressures and money.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The high speed cable wires that use these existing ROWs are just the newest addition to the infrastructure network that continues to give Chicago importance.

This sort of thing is nice and all, but it sounds more like bragging rights that dosent really impact things for your everyday person. Once the cables are buried theres really not any jobs to be had from it. Certainly not compared to other physical infrastructure we're talking about like airports and freight yards. Data centers rely on a couple dudes in a control room.

Things like financial markets rely on them but thats just sort of keeping things where theyre at, not giving us huge net gains. And as we've seen, as physical trading floors close which require people to be in one building, now everyone across the globe has access. Being located in Chicago for those individuals is less important.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

This sort of thing is nice and all, but it sounds more like bragging rights that dosent really impact things for your everyday person. Once the cables are buried theres really not any jobs to be had from it. Certainly not compared to other physical infrastructure we're talking about like airports and freight yards. Data centers rely on a couple dudes in a control room.

Things like financial markets rely on them but thats just sort of keeping things where theyre at, not giving us huge net gains. And as we've seen, as physical trading floors close which require people to be in one building, now everyone across the globe has access. Being located in Chicago for those individuals is less important.

lets build massive hsr on those row.
chicago needs to get that hub before some other state does.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Sort of the point isn't it? The industrial 'hangover' is most visible in (has had the largest impact on) the rustbelt of which Chicago is A or THE regional hub.

So, let's think about the 80s to present. The industrial hangover was very much present throughout this entire time period (which no doubt started even earlier - as early as the early 70s?? - was it even a bit earlier than that?). There certainly to my mind hasn't been an acceleration in industrial decline in the City since 2000 - I think it's greatest rate of decline surely must be well in the rearview mirror - the 70s? 70s-80s maybe?? Gentrification really began to take hold in the city (obviously very select neighborhoods at first, eg Lincoln Park) by what - the early 80s?? Chicago began to grow again after this first wave of gentrification had a little time to gain some traction - reflected in the 1990s population data. So the question ever since, is why did the city's population renew its trend of decline soon after? I think the research this past summer from Harvard's Jackelyn Hwang and Robert Sampson offers up a big clue, and it's tied to the city's racial segregation. We already know that the city's African American neighborhood population is in severe decline. What they demonstrated was that neighborhoods in Chicago that are around 40% or more African American simply do not gentrify - at least historically. 33 of Chicago's 77 community areas are roughly 40% or more African American. These are in effect 'off the table' so to speak in terms of reinvestment, economic development and population growth. What's more - I think around 20 community areas or so are virtually all African American (well, at least 90% I believe). These seem to be especially radioactive to any sort of economic regeneration and growth. Combine this, with the fact that large numbers of these community areas are seeing severe outmigration to the suburbs and the southern US, and to me this is all highly suggestive that what we saw in the late 80s-2000 as far as population growth was the low-medium hanging fruit in terms of neighborhoods that are susceptible to gentrification have been picked over, and the city is up against a major countervailing force in trying to spark renewed overall growth that is intimately related to its almost institutionalized severe racial and related socioeconomic segregation......

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

You are going to see a lot of areas clamoring to tap the great lakes waters sooner than you think. Luckily there seems to already be organizations in place to help prevent this..but all parties need to stay strong and resist outside pressures and money.

Most people don't realize this, but moving water over long distances is a lot harder and more expensive than people realize. Unless you can divert it via existing riverways, it gets really expensive. Desalinization would be cheaper for California and the West than taking Great Lakes water over the Rockies, and even moving Great Lakes water to someplace like Atlanta or Texas would be really difficult. Sure there are oil pipelines, but water sells for 3 cents a gallon at the high end wholesale rate, vs oil at a current price of about $1.20 per gallon and a low in my lifetime of still about $0.75 per gallon. That's a huge difference. And water is about 20% heavier than oil, so the cost of moving it is even higher.

Originally Posted by marothisu

As a whole yes, though surprisingly Manhattan and Chicago have about the same percentage of foreign born population. A lot of immigrants have gone to areas like Queens which is about 50% foreign born now.

I was looking at election results this morning and some of the maps I saw had ethnic info overlaid. I was surprised that the 42nd Ward, which is the Loop, most of River North, etc, has the second-highest Asian population among all city wards. The ward including Bridgeport and East Pilsen has the highest, at over 30% Asian, but even the ward including Chinatown proper is shaped so that Chinatown's Asian-ness is diluted quite a bit. The 42nd ward is at 16.9% Asian. The third-most-Asian ward was one of the wards around Devon, at 16.5%.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

This sort of thing is nice and all, but it sounds more like bragging rights that dosent really impact things for your everyday person. Once the cables are buried theres really not any jobs to be had from it. Certainly not compared to other physical infrastructure we're talking about like airports and freight yards. Data centers rely on a couple dudes in a control room.

Things like financial markets rely on them but thats just sort of keeping things where theyre at, not giving us huge net gains. And as we've seen, as physical trading floors close which require people to be in one building, now everyone across the globe has access. Being located in Chicago for those individuals is less important.

Whether you're involved in high-frequency trading or not, having actual proximity to very-high-capacity network infrastructure is actually an advantage for any company dependent on the internet or WAN infrastructure. Which is an increasingly large number of companies. It's the sort of thing that isn't used for ranking for site location, it's like a cost of entry, a prerequisite. Certain kinds of companies wouldn't even consider a location that didn't have extremely good national-level bandwidth connectivity. And while that may not require the same level of maintenance as, say, a railroad, it does require some, as well as upgrades and augmentation over time.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

I was looking at election results this morning and some of the maps I saw had ethnic info overlaid. I was surprised that the 42nd Ward, which is the Loop, most of River North, etc, has the second-highest Asian population among all city wards. The ward including Bridgeport and East Pilsen has the highest, at over 30% Asian, but even the ward including Chinatown proper is shaped so that Chinatown's Asian-ness is diluted quite a bit. The 42nd ward is at 16.9% Asian. The third-most-Asian ward was one of the wards around Devon, at 16.5%.

Yep. Downtown area actually has a higher percentage of Asians than most people think. If you took out the area north of Division in the GC and Old Town, the percentage would be higher for the Near North Side. I would be willing to bet you the Census data is even more. Of course, this is my anecdotal stories, but when I first moved downtown in 2009 I didn't notice anything huge about the Asian population. Starting about 3 years ago, I noticed a big influx downtown.

Here is a look at some of the tracts downtown for Asian % at the 2010 Census:
* 30% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031281900.html
* 21.7% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081403.html
* 19.7% --http://www.usa.com/IL031330200.html
* 19.1% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031320100.html
* 19% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031841000.html
* 18.5% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081402.html
* 16.4% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031839100.html
* 16.4% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031320600.html
* 15.9% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081500.html
* 15.1% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081401.html
* 14.9% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031280100.html
* 14.5% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031330100.html
* 14.4% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031839000.html
* 13.6% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081600.html
* 13% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081700.html
* 10.2% -- http://www.usa.com/IL031081800.html

That's 16 census tracts with over 10% Asian population (this of course counts Indians too) in Streeterville, River North, Loop, West Loop, and South Loop alone.

There's another one between Michigan, the lake, Walton, and Chicago that's 9.9% There's another 2 tracts between Chicago, Division, State, and Wells that are both between 9 and 10% and another one south of Division and west of Wells that's 9.6%.

I'd put my money on at least half of these being higher right now too versus 2010.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So, let's think about the 80s to present. The industrial hangover was very much present throughout this entire time period (which no doubt started even earlier - as early as the early 70s?? - was it even a bit earlier than that?). There certainly to my mind hasn't been an acceleration in industrial decline in the City since 2000 - I think it's greatest rate of decline surely must be well in the rearview mirror - the 70s? 70s-80s maybe?? Gentrification really began to take hold in the city (obviously very select neighborhoods at first, eg Lincoln Park) by what - the early 80s?? Chicago began to grow again after this first wave of gentrification had a little time to gain some traction - reflected in the 1990s population data. So the question ever since, is why did the city's population renew its trend of decline soon after? I think the research this past summer from Harvard's Jackelyn Hwang and Robert Sampson offers up a big clue, and it's tied to the city's racial segregation. We already know that the city's African American neighborhood population is in severe decline. What they demonstrated was that neighborhoods in Chicago that are around 40% or more African American simply do not gentrify - at least historically. 33 of Chicago's 77 community areas are roughly 40% or more African American. These are in effect 'off the table' so to speak in terms of reinvestment, economic development and population growth. What's more - I think around 20 community areas or so are virtually all African American (well, at least 90% I believe). These seem to be especially radioactive to any sort of economic regeneration and growth. Combine this, with the fact that large numbers of these community areas are seeing severe outmigration to the suburbs and the southern US, and to me this is all highly suggestive that what we saw in the late 80s-2000 as far as population growth was the low-medium hanging fruit in terms of neighborhoods that are susceptible to gentrification have been picked over, and the city is up against a major countervailing force in trying to spark renewed overall growth that is intimately related to its almost institutionalized severe racial and related socioeconomic segregation......

so all we have to do is wait for enough black people to move out?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I think the research this past summer from Harvard's Jackelyn Hwang and Robert Sampson offers up a big clue, and it's tied to the city's racial segregation. We already know that the city's African American neighborhood population is in severe decline. What they demonstrated was that neighborhoods in Chicago that are around 40% or more African American simply do not gentrify - at least historically.

that's probably true for neighborhoods further away from the core, but closer to downtown, we have seen some pretty big exceptions to the "black neighborhoods in chicago never gentrify" rule.

from another thread on gentrification:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the most extreme case of black-to-white racial change i could find in any of chicago's community areas from 1990-2010 was the near south side.

the community area went from 5.2% white in 1990 to 48.1% white in 2010.

conversely, the black population dropped from 92.3% in 1990 to 28.1% in 2010.

on the surface that looks like a big white wave of gentrification pushed the black population out, but the percentages don't tell the whole story. the area in question experienced a 213% population growth over those two decades as dozens of new condo towers were built and wealthy, mostly white, buyers moved in. the population exploded from 6,828 in 1990 to 21,390 in 2010.

there were ~6,300 black people living in the area in 1990 and there were still ~6,000 black people living in the area in 2010. so it wasn't so much that black people were pushed out by gentrifying whites, rather, the area saw the addition of thousands upon thousands of new housing units that were mostly purchased by whites, thus radically altering the racial make-up of the area.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's probably true for neighborhoods further away from the core, but closer to downtown, we have seen some pretty big exceptions to the "black neighborhoods in chicago never gentrify" rule.

from another thread on gentrification:

The main thrust of the paper is not that black neighborhoods don't gentrify, but that ethnic diversity is a precursor and they explore the role of immigration in creating that diversity in dis-invested neighborhoods. One of the things they found was that the presence of a Asian population was a more significant factor than that of a Hispanic presence.

The near south side doesn't really contradict their conclusions.
As a community area the NSS cuts out Chinatown, which is technically part of the Armour Square community area.

In 1990 the oriental population of Chinatown was probably equal to the total population of the NSS. If this is taken in the mix, the expanded area's ethnic make up was completely different.

[Baronvonellis]

I think bronzeville south to kenwood is gentrifying now. I was driving down there along the south lake front and there are lots of new 6 flats along the side streets. On beautiful tree lined streets, blocks from the lake. A 3 bedroom new construction condo in a 6 flat a block from the lake was only $250,000. Its kind of insane how cheap it is there compared to the northside, and the only reason is cause its near black people. If I didn't work in the north burbs I would seriously consider buying there.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

That was true for 19th century transport modes, but no longer. Not much freight gets transferred from lake boats to boxcars any more. Though Chicago's rôle as a classic entrepôt had a long tail—big rail classification yards, O'Hare as a multicarrier hub, option trading at the Board of Trade—there's no longer any geographic reason for any of those, just inertia. Chicago's raison d'être escapes to places with cheaper land, lower labor costs, better weather or scenery, more emphasis on education.

It's not just freight, it's that Chicago is and always has been at the bottom of the funnel of what is essentially the most fertile, resource rich, land on earth. Chicago opened up the West and continues to do so in some old ways and some new ways. While we might see less industry or freight traffic (everyone is experiencing this effect, see below) we are seeing a greater accumulation of human capital. Chicago is the only alpha city in it's entire region and as a result collects the top talent from the entire region. Chicago is the only metro of more than 4 million in a region with more than 65 million inhabitants. Compare that to the coasts or just about anywhere else on earth and you start to notice just how extreme the differential between Chicago and it's surrounding, incredibly valuable, region is. That's a major advantage in and of itself. Chicago has always been the great harvester of the Midwest's wealth and that's something that's never going to change regardless of what kind of wealth the region generates.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^That's true, but I don't think it will become terribly relevant for a couple more centuries.

Tell that to California or Texas who have both been absolutely roasted in recent years. These extreme droughts are only going to worsen. Meanwhile the Great Lakes region is expected to see significantly more precipitation as the ultra humid weather of the mid south gulf states gets pushed further inland. Given the extremity of what is going on in CA I wouldn't be surprised if we see weather events in the next two decades that significantly curb growth in sunbelt regions particularly in places that can't just desalinate their way out of the mess like Dallas. Also, the aquifers that places like Dallas rely on are rapidly dropping, what happens when they dry up? Thank god there is a law prohibiting great lakes water from crossing the continental divide, we are going to need it.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

This sort of thing is nice and all, but it sounds more like bragging rights that dosent really impact things for your everyday person. Once the cables are buried theres really not any jobs to be had from it. Certainly not compared to other physical infrastructure we're talking about like airports and freight yards. Data centers rely on a couple dudes in a control room.

Things like financial markets rely on them but thats just sort of keeping things where theyre at, not giving us huge net gains. And as we've seen, as physical trading floors close which require people to be in one building, now everyone across the globe has access. Being located in Chicago for those individuals is less important.

First of all, being at the center of these fiber lines is as close to being at the center of the internet as you can be, so it's not just finance that relies on it. However, the more important observation in your post is that technology is rapidly making all labor obsolete. We are within 20 (maybe less) years of seeing the first crops delivered to market that have not been touched in any way by human labor. Tractors now drive themselves except to turn around at the end of rows, we will have autonomous trucks within a decade, most food processing is already automated. Within our lifetimes we will have robot armies that grow, harvest, and process our most basic necessities and then deliver them for our consumption.

This is happening in nearly every industry at an astonishing pace. It sounds very sci-fi, but if you look at the technologies in the pipeline even 5 years down the road, we are actually on the verge of a new technological era, a transition from the services age to the automation age. Quality of life and proximity to communications networks are going to be the relevant factors in this new world. And, let me tell you, after dealing with the horrendous living conditions in NYC for the past week, the quality of life here is far better than most places, we just need to market it.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

so all we have to do is wait for enough black people to move out?

As horrible as it sounds, that's been my thought on the matter for a while. And let's be clear, it's not really "black people" that are the factor here, it's a certain class of black people who have been horrendously marginalized for centuries. The best thing for both the people in this class and society at large is for them to disperse and break the segregation. It's no mystery why a place like Bronzeville seems to be having much less trouble redeveloping than East Garfield Park or similar areas. The black people in Bronzeville, now that the projects are gone, are, as a whole, middle class or even upper class.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

I think bronzeville south to kenwood is gentrifying now. I was driving down there along the south lake front and there are lots of new 6 flats along the side streets. On beautiful tree lined streets, blocks from the lake. A 3 bedroom new construction condo in a 6 flat a block from the lake was only $250,000. Its kind of insane how cheap it is there compared to the northside, and the only reason is cause its near black people. If I didn't work in the north burbs I would seriously consider buying there.

Take a look at August 2013-Dec 2014 new construction permits. You can see a number down there:
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/ed...k.kqNXua4ThNtY


And it doesn't have to do with "Black people" - it has to do with people's perceived safety of the area which is right now, semi outdated IMO.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

I think bronzeville south to kenwood is gentrifying now. I was driving down there along the south lake front and there are lots of new 6 flats along the side streets. On beautiful tree lined streets, blocks from the lake. A 3 bedroom new construction condo in a 6 flat a block from the lake was only $250,000. Its kind of insane how cheap it is there compared to the northside, and the only reason is cause its near black people. If I didn't work in the north burbs I would seriously consider buying there.

That's not the only reason, and perhaps not even the main reason. Plus, "a block from the lake" on the South Lakefront means, 1 block to a wide railroad plus the wide LSD. On the North Lakefront, there are no Metra tracks, and LSD is often somewhat narrower than on the South Lakefront - not a lot, but when you're walking every bit counts.

Things the North Lakefront has that the South Lakefront doesn't, all of which are shown to drive real estate prices:

1) More consistent, closer access to the Lakefront - South Lakefront between Roosevelt and Hyde Park @ 51st St has 8 access points. North Lakefront between Oak Street and Uptown @ Lawrence has 16.
2) Proximity to the 'L' - people in Oakwood or Kenwood rarely walk to the "L"
3) A density factor that enables a significantly higher number of restaurants and shops within walking distance
4) Lower crime rate, especially a significantly lower recent historical crime rate (the gap is closing, but still exists and used to be very wide indeed)