HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 11:51 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Gentrification: We are currently building our way to hell

the guardian has had an interesting series of articles on gentrification recently.

‘We are building our way to hell’: tales of gentrification around the world

Quote:
“I am a 70 year old carpenter and I have seen more decay in the quality of life in the last three years in Portland, Oregon – pearl of culture in the Great Northwest – with the one-term mayor ‘Chainsaw Charlie Hales’ who was previously a lobbyist for the the ‘home builders’ – read developers. Towers built into the sky on alluvial soil – the stuff that turns to pudding in an earthquake. Hundred-year-old classic neighbourhoods injected with ‘cereal box’ buildings invalidating residents’ privacy and daylight.

From my perspective, I would call this a travesty: ‘Bankers gone wild’. A spreadsheet vision of creating investments that spread the risk, with total disregard for community culture which, prior to this, was well protected by zoning. The people here have a campaign called Stop demolishing Portland. Such beauty is being replaced by such tastelessness, as though the reason the people want to live here is to be housed like gerbils. The cult of efficiency, unchecked and ungrounded is the universal salve that greases the way to community destruction and dislocation. We are currently building our way to hell.” (David Chinook Bean)
Quote:
Chicago, US: ‘I’m afraid of the day when the stores, the people, the library are all gone’
“You can’t live on the north-west side of Chicago without talking about gentrification. There is a lot of action being taken to counteract it. From civil disobediences on the luxury towers being constructed on Milwaukee Avenue to rallies against evictions throughout the neighborhood, gentrification is one of the most contentious issues facing our city.

The push for affordable housing is coming from the community, not elected officials. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has a slogan called ‘Building a new Chicago’; what does that mean? There is already a Chicago here. There is obviously an agenda to gentrify and attract tourists to make Chicago a ‘global city’. We should be subsidizing affordable housing, instead of downtown hotels. We need rent control and eviction laws. As a lifelong resident of the north-west side of Chicago, I’m afraid of there coming a day when I don’t recognise my neighborhood, when the stores, the people, the library are all gone. That gets to the root of gentrification: this loss of familiarity and home.” (Lynda Lopez)
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2016, 11:57 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Yeah, stopping luxury housing from being built is a great idea to stop rising rents. Has totally worked in SF and LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 12:27 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,102
I'll never understand these entitled anti-gentrification assholes. God forbid the city (Chicago) do something to promote economic development. How dare they try to improve neighborhoods???

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 12:30 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,840
I think we can all attest that neighborhoods that are gentrified, are... pretty damn nice, and safe. We could use some gentrification in NJ cities. Trenton, and the biggie, Newark, which I think has the biggest potential of any NJ city. More so than Jersey City IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 1:22 AM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is online now
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,095
The fact that he is 70 years old probably means he is mentally & financially invested in the status quo.
I do agree that much new construction apartments and hotels all across this country are of a noticeably lower quality than historic buildings. But during America's guilded age there was a near limitless supply of super cheap skilled labor. The workers deserve to be paid a living wage nowadays but that does omit the ornate detailing of the old buildings that we all love so much.
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 1:30 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
I'll never understand these entitled anti-gentrification assholes. God forbid the city (Chicago) do something to promote economic development. How dare they try to improve neighborhoods???

This assumes non-affluent neighbourhoods need improvement. Not all gentrification occurs in bombed out post-industrial neighbourhoods; in fact, most do not. I'm not against improvements where necessary, but I look at what gentrification has done to Vancouver and Toronto, let alone global cities, and I'm unimpressed. It merely displaces the marginalized, the working poor, the innovators, and increasingly even the middle class, and makes cities bastions of the hyper elite and the hyper elite only.

Of course, not building anything is also kinda counter-intuitive with growing cities, or even stagnant ones with decaying infrastructure. But cities need to do a better job at not only building glass condos and chic infill developments that nobody making less than $85,000 can afford. There is a space for new high-end development, but it can't be all that we're building because if that's all we build, we get Vancouver, or in less constrained cities, Atlanta or Dallas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 2:05 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
This assumes non-affluent neighbourhoods need improvement. Not all gentrification occurs in bombed out post-industrial neighborhoods; in fact, most do not. I'm not against improvements where necessary, but I look at what gentrification has done to Vancouver and Toronto, let alone global cities, and I'm unimpressed. It merely displaces the marginalized, the working poor, the innovators, and increasingly even the middle class, and makes cities bastions of the hyper elite and the hyper elite only.
Well said. Cities should be first and foremost about community. I dont think theres anything wrong with making money. But when I look at hyper-gentrified neighborhoods, all I see is rampant greed. I think a successful neighborhood is one where people of all incomes can live relatively side by side, this is what has always made cities more appealing than walled off suburbs. But it seems to me, we are simply recreating these dynamics in urban areas now.

There was someone in the comments section of that article (and others here in this thread) who basically take the viewpoint of "what does it say that someone can come into your run down neighborhood and do in 5 years what your people couldn't do in 30 years"? I find this inherently offensive, and frankly imperialistic. This whole notion that "we known better than you do whats best". Run down by whose standard? I see GORGEOUS victorian era homes being demolished in this city every day because some neavau rich thinks theyre "run down". Its like when you talk to someone who grew up poor, but didnt know they were poor until someone pointed it out to them. While they didnt have lots of "things", they were generally happy. The vast majority of the world finds happiness on earnings far less than the average American. Your bank account or the square footage of your condo does not make you who you are.

My SO grew up and still lives in Little Village, which is a primarily tight knit mexican community here in Chicago that is beginning to face these issues. She HATES having this conversation, because as soon as people find out where she lives, its immediately the first thing people ask her about. "Oh, what are your thoughts on gentrification?" Its the least interesting topic of conversation you could possibly bring up. Its like a bunch of suburban dads sitting around talking about their portfolio balances. She'd rather talk about culture, or art, or food, or gardening, or literature...the kinds of things most people would usually rather talk about it theyre not self absorbed and trying to flaunt their wealth.

Her block is as I said a tight knit one, and she knew everyone in the neighborhood growing up. To this day, her parents, her sister, and herself still own property on the same block and have been there for 30+ years. And its that way on many blocks. It feels like a community. They werent sitting around obsessing about property values or trying to get in on the next "hot" place. They simply bought homes in an area most other people didnt give a shit about (in fact one many openly derided), and lived their lives. Yea there were gangs but it wasnt in the sense of this scary "other". It was simply, "oh yea, thats Carlos and I've known him since I was in first grade. Hes kind of a fucking idiot. hes probably done shady shit but he'll do an awesome job detailing your car if you ever need it". So you can imagine how surreal it is to now have people talking about your home, and your community, in these other sorts of terms...in terms that have nothing to do with you and the people you care about, and the businesses and homes you love, but as simply a place for real estate vultures to come in and remake to some sort of trendy global standard. And having to deal with the assumptions they make about you, just by virtue of where you live. She had a co-worker say to her, when she told him where she lived, "oh, of course you live there now that its trendy to do so". She nearly smacked him upside the head. Or the new residents who have come in have culturally appropriated aspects of her upbringing ("tacos are a quirky novelty!" vs "tortillas and rice and beans are what I ate every single day because it was literally our diet, and i was embarrassed about inviting other kids over because its what our house always smelled like").

Or here's another thing, its common for everyone to play music at full volume outdoors on weekends. You can hear three or four different Mexican folk songs drifting over from surrounding homes. Its always been this way, because again, no one ever gave a shit and it was understood that you can do the same if you want. People throw impromptu parties that go late into the night. And peple also own roosters that are up at dawn. But suddenly, a new person moves in and makes complaints. Sure, theyre technically right, but as The Dude would say, "Youre not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole". The only thing the old residents feel is resentment, because its someone who dosent understand the culture thats been there for decades and thinks their version of culture is inherently superior, simply by virtue of being new and having more money.

I spent some time the other night walking around Roscoe Village, which I think can safely be considered one of the neighborhoods of Chicago that saw heavy gentrification over the past 20 years, and has now entered something beyond that (multi-million dollar homes). I no longer recognize the city I thought I knew when I walk down residential blocks there. Virtually all of the old frame and brick homes have been demolished and replaced with insular tacky mansions. Theres also a decided lack of diversity among residents, both economic and racial. I look at how rapidly the old housing stock is being lost, and it truly saddens me to see such a lack of appreciation for what made this city unique and appealing in the first place. Theres no culture being produced, nothing of lasting importance. Theres no zest for life. Its simply people trying to outdo themselves, and thats about it. If we see this is the ideal endgame for every neighborhood that currently falls below that standard, I question what it is we're chasing as a society.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Oct 6, 2016 at 4:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 2:13 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
This assumes non-affluent neighbourhoods need improvement. Not all gentrification occurs in bombed out post-industrial neighbourhoods; in fact, most do not.
Yes, this.

There's hardly any gentrification on the South Side of Chicago, Detroit, Newark etc.

It generally happens in more stable working class areas with older housing and locations appealing to gentrifiers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 2:22 AM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post

Of course, not building anything is also kinda counter-intuitive with growing cities, or even stagnant ones with decaying infrastructure. But cities need to do a better job at not only building glass condos and chic infill developments that nobody making less than $85,000 can afford. There is a space for new high-end development, but it can't be all that we're building because if that's all we build, we get Vancouver, or in less constrained cities, Atlanta or Dallas.
Dude the reason all new development is expensive glass condos is thats pretty much all regulations allow to be built.

Inexpensive new construction pencils out in lower density, usually single family neighborhoods, the NIMBY sacred cow.

This discussion is completely pointless unless you guys recognize the effect regulation has on housing costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 3:48 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Dude the reason all new development is expensive glass condos is thats pretty much all regulations allow to be built.

Inexpensive new construction pencils out in lower density, usually single family neighborhoods, the NIMBY sacred cow.

This discussion is completely pointless unless you guys recognize the effect regulation has on housing costs.
Yet somehow, lower income or middle class orientated housing can and does get built in inner cities in North America, it's just not the norm. It clearly can be done. And many areas really do not even need new development. They're built out and the current density fulfills current demands of the local populace.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 4:05 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Well said. Cities should be first and foremost about community. I dont think theres anything wrong with making money. But when I look at hyper-gentrified neighborhoods, all I see is rampant greed. I think a successful neighborhood is one where people of all incomes can live relatively side by side, this is what has always made cities more appealing than walled off suburbs. But it seems to me, we are simply recreating these dynamics in urban areas now.
Indeed. Admittedly I'm only moderately knowledgeable about Chicago geography, but I think of places like Lakeshore East, I suppose, or examples I know more readily like Toronto's CityPlace, Vancouver's Yaletown, or Calgary's Downtown West End. They're all brownfield developments that are essentially vertical suburbs. Catering to a specific socio-economic background and often containing within them a full onslaught of "community amenities" that make it easy to avoid the world beyond your building (not that it isn't convenient doing laundry or going to the gym in your own condo tower).

Or even established, built out neighbourhoods that relied more on preservation and sprucing of historic buildings for gentrification. There's been a character and sense of community lost, even if the gorgeous urban fabric remains. I'm thinking of Greenwich Village in the '70s vs today, Kitsilano in the '90s vs today, Camden Town in the '80s vs today.

There was someone in the comments section of that article (and others here in this thread) who basically take the viewpoint of "what does it say that someone can come into your run down neighborhood and do in 5 years what your people couldn't do in 30 years"? I find this inherently offensive. Run down by whose standard? I see GORGEOUS victorian era homes being demolished in this city every day because some neavau rich thinks theyre "run down". Its like when you talk to someone who grew up poor, but didnt know they were poor until someone pointed it out to them. While they didnt have lots of "things", they were generally happy. The vast majority of the world finds happiness on earnings far less than the average American. Your bank account or the square footage of your condo does not make you who you are.

Quote:
Her block is as I said a tight knit one, and she knew everyone in the neighborhood growing up. To this day, her parents, her sister, and herself still own property on the same block and have been there for 30+ years. And its that way on many blocks. It feels like a community. They werent sitting around obsessing about property values or trying to get in on the next "hot" place. They simply bought homes in an area most other people didnt give a shit about (in fact one many openly derided), and lived their lives. Yea there were gangs but it wasnt in the sense of this scary "other". It was simply, "oh yea, thats Carlos and I've known him since I was in first grade. Hes kind of a fucking idiot. hes probably done shady shit but he'll do an awesome job detailing your car if you ever need it". So you can imagine how surreal it is to now have people talking about your home, and your community, in these other sorts of terms...in terms that have nothing to do with you and the people you care about, and the businesses and homes you love, but as simply a place for real estate vultures to come in and remake to some sort of trendy global standard. And having to deal with the assumptions they make about you, just by virtue of where you live. She had a co-worker say to her, when she told him where she lived, "oh, of course you live there now that its trendy to do so". She nearly smacked him upside the head. Or the new residents who have come in have culturally appropriated aspects of her upbringing ("tacos are a quirky novelty!" vs "tortillas and rice and beans are what I ate every single day because it was literally our diet, and i was embarrassed about inviting other kids over because its what our house always smelled like").
That sounds awesome. It's a shame that this community going back generations is being threatened by the nouveau-riche who already have plenty of other places to go.

I have to say that we're fairly lucky here in Edmonton vis-a-vis gentrification, but I'm not sure how much longer that will hold up considering the vast urban transformations afoot here now. A good example of what I'm talking about is Old Strathcona, one of the city's more well preserved and walkable neighbourhoods. It started becoming trendier in the '90s with the first wave of artists, though I think it was always popular with students due to proximity to the UofA. Starting in the 2000s, chains started popping up on the main drag, Whyte Ave, like Starbucks, Roots, Lululemon, and so on, and while this continues through to today, there is still a very healthy mix of businesses. Some chain, some local; some higher end, some more frugal. The strip and neighbourhood are well known and new condos have gone up, with more planned, but it seems to have a decent socioeconomic mix. There's students, there's artists, there's yuppies, there's suburban families, there's fashionistas, there's homeless, there's working class, there's everyday middle class people. I have to wonder if this will change more as Alberta Ave and 124th Street continue to revitalize across the river.

It's a stark contrast to a city like Toronto, where the poor, and the less privileged creatives keep getting pushed further and further down Queen Street from the core, most obviously to the west, but even to the east as well. And now they're marginalized to the Junction, the last bastion of inner-city affordability, where you pay for that affordability through poorer accessibility to downtown. It seems like suburban Scarborough is really where the working class and starving artists are ending up, despite it also having poor connectivity to central Toronto services and industries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 4:20 AM
Jaborandi's Avatar
Jaborandi Jaborandi is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
It seems like suburban Scarborough is really where the working class and starving artists are ending up, despite it also having poor connectivity to central Toronto services and industries.
The starving artists, musicians, writers and actors have moved to the funky urban environment of inner Hamilton and have excellent connectivity to central Toronto via GO Transit which takes about an hour downtown to downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 4:26 AM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by ue View Post
Yet somehow, lower income or middle class orientated housing can and does get built in inner cities in North America, it's just not the norm.
Yes, it gets built in places like Houston which allows it. Not in SF or LA where its not.

Here is how Houston does it: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...c-do-the-same/

Quote:
It clearly can be done. And many areas really do not even need new development. They're built out and the current density fulfills current demands of the local populace.
Of course it can be done, just not under the existing regulatory environment in many of our largest metros.

As for your second claim, I'm not sure where you got that from. If supply was keeping pace with demand we wouldn't have rising prices. Econ 101.

And yes, it is possible to have a fast growing dense metro without growing prices: https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-...d-2fc0c26b3c60

Last edited by ChargerCarl; Oct 6, 2016 at 4:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 3:41 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,780
Little Village is considered a gentrifying neighborhood? I mean really? It's bordering the suburbs, like 90% Mexican, and surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in the Midwest. It's a looong way from downtown, with no rail transit.

Gentrification is generally a good thing, but there are costs, and especially a creeping sameness that seems to envelop heavily gentrified areas. It seems everywhere is evolving to Generica.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 3:53 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Chicago's population is about a million less than its peak and huge swaths of the city are almost abandoned. I think they'll manage.

And not to sound like a Republican, but this is one area where the problem really is regulation. The fact is that urban housing that was affordable back in the late 19th and early 20th century wouldn't be up to code today. Let people build 6-story walk ups with no central air conditioning and shitty plumbing that go right to the lot lines, with narrow light wells for interior rooms, and you might be able to generate a return on lower cost units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 3:57 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
It's a looong way from downtown,
you exaggerate. 26th and central park (the heart of little village) is 5 miles from state/madison, roughly the same distance from state/madison as wrigley field is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
with no rail transit.
not quite. the pink line straddles the northern edge of little village with stops at western, california, kedzie, central park, pulaski, and kostner. it does run ~2/3 of a mile north of the main drag of 26th street, so that's a longish walk or a bus connection for many in little village, but for folks who live north of 26th in little village, they have a relatively easy walk to a nearby el station.



and most importantly, much of little village is still intact from a built environment perspective, which makes it attractive to first-wave gentrifiers (the proverbial "starving artists"). it's cheap, but not a bombed-out post-apocalyptic hell-scape. it's edgy and a bit crimey, but not black ghetto crimey.

here's a streetview of 26th street, the main drag of little village: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8444...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 6, 2016 at 4:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 3:57 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Little Village has better food too.

And if you don't believe it will ever gentrify, look at Pilsen. It's got a restaurant that just earned a Michelin star, and it's not even Mexican (Dusek's). The hipsters have well and truly arrived.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 4:09 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Little Village is considered a gentrifying neighborhood? I mean really? It's bordering the suburbs, like 90% Mexican, and surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in the Midwest. It's a looong way from downtown, with no rail transit.
It is not as much on the radar as Pilsen (yet), but its clear the wave of development and developer speculation will push that far west in time. It is right off the Pink Line, or at least a very short walk. You might not believe me, but there are people in button downs standing on the Kedzie platform in the morning. Its no worse than riding into downtown from Uptown. If you walk around the area, there are already the starving artists/punk band dudes interspersed among the Mexican families...basically the people who were in Logan Square 15 years ago. Its also convenient for kids going to UIC. While the neighborhood has crime, its housing stock is more or less completely in tact and does not have as big of issues as Lawndale to the north. And the big difference: you can actually buy a house, like a classic brick Chicago house house, for under 100k. My SO bought her home for 50k. It has a backyard, an original brick garage, hardwood, etc. Festivals like Riot Fest have brought young people to Douglas Park, and some trendy stuff like El Ideas is very close by too (Michelin Starred)
http://www.elideas.com/

The fact it is near the inner suburbs matters little when we are talking about development along the Blue Line now pushing into Old Irving Park. If you cant afford the insane hosing prices in the already gentrified areas, then you by default look at areas beyond those. People still have the outdated notion of Wicker Park being an artist haven, which I find laughable given the hedge fund manager prices the housing is going for. Milwaukee Ave is now Lincoln Park West. Logan Square is getting to peak absurdity too. All the people who were renting there before the second/third wavers flooded in have gone somewhere else...

I remember people scoffing at Logan Square and Humboldt Park in 2006 too.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Oct 6, 2016 at 4:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 4:29 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
you exaggerate. 26th and central park (the heart of little village) is 5 miles from state/madison, roughly the same distance from state/madison as wrigley field is.




not quite. the pink line straddles the northern edge of little village with stops at western, california, kedzie, central park, pulaski, and kostner, but it does run ~2/3 of a mile north of the main drag of 26th street, so that's a longish walk or a bus connection for many in little village, but for folks who live north of 26th in little village, they have a relatively easy walk to a nearby el station.



and most importantly, much of little village is intact from a built environment perspective, which makes it attractive to first-wave gentrifiers (the proverbial "starving artists"). it's cheap, but not a bombed out post-apocalyptic hell-scape. it's edgy and a bit crimey, but not black ghetto crimey.

here's a streetview of 26th street, the main drag of little village: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8444...7i13312!8i6656
I've been to Little Village a ton of times. Sister lives in suburban Chicago and my wife is Mexican, so we almost always stop at a taqueria on 26th when in town.

If Little Village is "gentrified", then I don't know the meaning of the word. It's Chicago's largest and most prominent ethnic neighborhood, and about 100 years from Lululemon and $8 pressed juice. It's basically Cicero (which is adjacent, and demographically/street level the same). It's so Mexican that when I enter a restaurant or bakery, heads turn in unison as if I were a gringo in rural Mexico (I'm obvious Northern European looking).

The Pink Line may not be super far from 26th, but I doubt it matters. South of the tracks is all Mexican, north of the tracks is all black. North Lawndale might be the toughest neighborhood in Chicago, and I doubt commuters are straddling that boundary.

I think we've become so suburbanized/accustomed to blight in the U.S. than any non-bombed out urban neighborhood is now being called "gentrified". LV is still a poor, high crime, gang-infested gateway neighborhood for first generation immigrants from rural Mexico, and probably decades away from being a place people aspire to rather than flee. It's probably the worst non-black neighborhood in Chicago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 4:35 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Little Village is considered a gentrifying neighborhood? I mean really? It's bordering the suburbs, like 90% Mexican, and surrounded by some of the toughest neighborhoods in the Midwest. It's a looong way from downtown, with no rail transit.

Gentrification is generally a good thing, but there are costs, and especially a creeping sameness that seems to envelop heavily gentrified areas. It seems everywhere is evolving to Generica.
As you point out, Little Village is a total shithole with no transit that is basically an inner ring suburb and will never gentrify. Proof:

Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.