HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #27881  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 12:53 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 19,840
^ It's not just hipsters bitching and moaning.

It's the low income people who are mad at people who actually make money, and are jealous that such people are gentrifying "their" neighborhood.

Same old shit, different neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27882  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 1:35 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,637
^Pathetic. I'll always remember the moment I found out what Gentrification meant. My brain exploded and mouth joined in with a collective what.the.f*ck? So you mean to tell me an increase in hard-working, successful, well-rounded people followed by an influx of various businesses to a shoddy neighborhood can be viewed as a bad thing? Yougottabekiddingme.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27883  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 2:34 PM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ It's not just hipsters bitching and moaning.

It's the low income people who are mad at people who actually make money, and are jealous that such people are gentrifying "their" neighborhood.

Same old shit, different neighborhood.
I've always been conflicted about gentrification. There are obvious benefits, but I also sympathize with lower income Hispanics in Chicago who have been priced out of--or are in the process of being priced out of--neighborhood after neighborhood (Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Pilsen). That has to be frustrating. I also don't like seeing the demise of vibrant ethnic areas like Chinatown in Manhanttan.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27884  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 2:56 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,098
Yes, but that's called change and change is what happens in cities. Change is also what creates these ethnic enclaves to begin with. The Mexicans didn't build Little Village or Pilsen, the Puerto Ricans didn't build Humboldt Park. They moved in after the previous ethic groups dispersed or moved out.

Cities require periodic gentrification to function. You can't have vast stagnant areas of impoverished minorities or the city just goes to crap. Look at the South Side, it hasn't been gentrified since it was built and is looking more than a little worse for wear. The African American block is an obvious exception to this immigration rule, but I have no worry for the hispanic communities or Chinese community, for example, when it comes to gentrification. New immigrant groups will always set about building a vibrant community no matter where they are pushed to. There are more than enough bombed out, impoverished, disrepaired, areas in this city that the next wave of immigrants can move to and fix up. In fact, we need immigrant groups to act as a stabilizing force for such areas. I have no doubt that, should an area such as Pilsen be completely gentrified, the current residents will simply move a few stops down the Pink line and start the gentrification process again themselves. We need that wave action. It is good for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27885  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 3:12 PM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 323
Gentrification does not have to mean pushing the poor out of a neighborhood. It's frustrating that everyone seems to be totally satisfied for how our neighborhoods gentrify today even though that gentrification typically makes our hoods less dense and less vibrant. We need to find the model for keeping neighborhoods intact while gentrifying them. Seattle is trying new ways, one of which requires affordable housing to be built within the same neighborhood for which the development is that contributed the housing credit funds. So if you build a tower in Lakeview and contribute funds rather than actual affordable units, those funds have to be built in Lakeview. Thus keeping a good balance of affordable units across the city and maybe, hopefully, letting longtime residents continue to dwell in their neighborhood.

We must think of better ways to make sure our cities include people from all backgrounds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27886  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 3:12 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 880
Well a few stops down the pink line is Little Village an already Mexican enclave But yea, the immigrants could always go to Lawndale or Garfield Park. I'd welcome them fixing up those areas. I hope that Garfield Park gets gentrified since that park and the conservatory are so amazing. Oh, to be able to have a greystone house across from Garfield Park, and have it be a safe area.

Yea, that highrise on Milwaukee looks awesome! That needs to be built!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27887  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 3:25 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 880
No one forced these immigrants to come to Chicago. Why should they get government subsidized housing from the taxes of people that work hard, and pay taxes. At least we should ban them sending the money they make here back to their other countries. They should have to spend it here if they are going to take advantage of our great economy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27888  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:17 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
^Pathetic. I'll always remember the moment I found out what Gentrification meant. My brain exploded and mouth joined in with a collective what.the.f*ck? So you mean to tell me an increase in hard-working, successful, well-rounded people followed by an influx of various businesses to a shoddy neighborhood can be viewed as a bad thing? Yougottabekiddingme.
There are winners and losers in our economic system. Pretending that the story of the winners is the only one that matter is being willfully ignorant of a large cross-section of life.

Who cares that SROs and mental health clinics are closed as long as we get our cocktail bars, gourmet mac and cheese, and luxury micro apartments, right?

Im not saying gentrification is bad necessarily. Im not saying its good either. Its simply a force that exists in our imperfect world. But a little empathy towards the poor and marginalized, who inevitably stand the most to lose in any economic upheaval, wouldnt hurt.

Having the social fabric of a neighborhood, which you've known for your entire life, violently ripped away from you can be an extremely confusing, personal, and hurtful thing. Especially when it feels like the newcomers, who never gave a sh*t about you or your neighborhood during the worst of times, are suddenly co-opting the culture and piggybacking on years of grassroots hard work now that its suddenly trendy to be there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27889  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:21 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Also, does anyone know why they are tearing down all kinds of buildings along Ogden right by Sinai Hospital on Douglas Park? Are they planning an expansion? Just today they put up fencing to demolish an older nondescript 4 story 1960's annex to the hospital. A few months ago they razed a bunch of junky industrial buildings directly to the North across Ogden...
http://www.sinai.org/about-sinai/new...improve-health
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27890  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:25 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
I've always been conflicted about gentrification. There are obvious benefits, but I also sympathize with lower income Hispanics in Chicago who have been priced out of--or are in the process of being priced out of--neighborhood after neighborhood (Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Pilsen). That has to be frustrating. I also don't like seeing the demise of vibrant ethnic areas like Chinatown in Manhanttan.
well maybe they should have bought a place when loans were cheap and land values were in the sewer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27891  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:31 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,045
...repost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27892  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:39 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,353
the problem with this forum is it is a echo chamber. a lot of people of the same sort of economic advantages patting each other on the back and cheer-leading the same causes, which they stand to gain from in one way or another.

im not anti-development by any stretch. but there are a lot of perspectives that are sorely lacking a mouthpiece, not just here but in the broader narrative. theres a pervasive attitude of "i got mine, the outcomes of anyone else is irrelevant"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27893  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 5:11 PM
Stunnies23 Stunnies23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
I've always been conflicted about gentrification. There are obvious benefits, but I also sympathize with lower income Hispanics in Chicago who have been priced out of--or are in the process of being priced out of--neighborhood after neighborhood (Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Pilsen). That has to be frustrating. I also don't like seeing the demise of vibrant ethnic areas like Chinatown in Manhanttan.
What about the Hispanic families that purchased a home and stand to gain a huge windfall of money when they go to sell. They buy a house for 100k when the neighborhood was gang infested / riddled with violence and later sell it for 250K. If you prevent gentrification, this hard working family can't reap the benefits of the hard work they put in to make their community better. That has to be frustrating and you should be sympathizing with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27894  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 5:32 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,637
^100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baronvonellis View Post
SNIP..I hope that Garfield Park gets gentrified since that park and the conservatory are so amazing. Oh, to be able to have a greystone house across from Garfield Park, and have it be a safe area.
I never visited the Conservatory until last Sunday and I share your enthusiasm. Such an incredible place. I will buy an adjacent house if you buy one. That's two down, a few thousand more to go. Any other takers? It's like crowdfunding but for entire neighborhoods.

Might as well share some On Topic news. KINGS at New City is slated for a September opening, as is Uniqlo on Michigan Ave. FWIW, here are the drawings. It's supposed to be pretty nice inside. https://shawmut.sharefile.com/d/scc43005131d49af8
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27895  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 5:42 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
I never visited the Conservatory until last Sunday and I share your enthusiasm. Such an incredible place.
Were they still fixing the roof when you were there, or is the main fern room re-opened?

I noticed this was one of the projects that had money stripped away by Rauners budget, but I was also under the impression this was supposed to pretty much be wrapped up this spring. (unless there was another renovation project underway there)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27896  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 5:55 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,637
Fern room was closed, as was one side of the palm tree room, with various signs up for roof improvements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27897  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 6:10 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
^Pathetic. I'll always remember the moment I found out what Gentrification meant. My brain exploded and mouth joined in with a collective what.the.f*ck? So you mean to tell me an increase in hard-working, successful, well-rounded people followed by an influx of various businesses to a shoddy neighborhood can be viewed as a bad thing? Yougottabekiddingme.
I think language here is part of the problem. Calling a neighborhood "shoddy," when often the ones that get gentrified first are fully functional areas that simply are economically structured to best serve lower-income residents is dismissive and patronizing and insulting. It's like making fun of a guy's 12-year-old Honda that works and he can afford because it's not a BMW - it's just kind of an a-hole thing to do.

I'll go on the record as saying that I completely support gentrification - I see it as a necessary part of the life cycle of cities. However, I also readily acknowledge that it does create problems and/or challenges to existing residents who are often least able to deal with those problems without significant disruption to their lives.

How, as a city (and society at large) deals with those challenges can have lasting impacts on the long-term health of a city and a culture. In the bigger picture, having strong social safety nets actually helps protect the free market despite the higher tax cost because it mitigates and/or prevents a negative cascade of impacts from hurting people unintentionally impacted by economic swings that happen faster than generational timeframes. That's where the biggest problems happen, when economic changes happen faster than employment life timeframes. Gentrification isn't the only example - automation in the automobile industry and in the steel industry are other examples. You had strong middle classes built on industries that changed enormously in a short period of time, creating a pool of displaced workers larger than could be retrained and repurposed in a timeframe that didn't cause individuals a lot of hardship. Simply saying that individuals make choices and need to be aware of the winds of economic change isn't good for the long-term health of a culture because it causes a reduction in risk and exacerbates the impact of failure for those who do takes risks. Taking risk is a necessary part of economics, but allowing individuals and families to suffer catastrophic consequences to rational risks gone bad doesn't benefit anyone. It obviously hurts the individuals, but it also means that those individuals will be less able to fully contribute to the economy because they'll be reduced to a survival mode that can be tough to break free of.

It's in everyone's best interest to have as many people as possible able to contribute their best work as long as possible. Things like current-occupant rent control and property tax increase limits can be part of the solution. I think where rent control goes wrong is when it's permanent, and when the allowed rate of increase is irrationally low - something like allowing rent to increase at twice the rate of inflation and only apply to the current resident of a unit would allow the market to progress in an area while still allowing current residents a more gradual absorption of the change. Having semi-public senior housing in all areas would also help mitigate the impact to people who have lived their entire lives in an area and wish to stay. In that case seniors might still get priced out of their specific home, but would be offered reasonable accommodations at a fixed cost in the area they have spent most of their lives in.

The goal can't be to eliminate all negative impacts for existing residents, nor can it be to eliminate all burden for those driving gentrification, and like most negotiation the middle ground should balance benefit and cost across both groups. Seniors might have to move from their apartment to a senior living facility at a reasonable price, but in return they get better public safety and more businesses and services in the area. Gentrification drivers end up either having to work a little harder to find a place that can really pop in value, or they can live with a slightly lower rate of appreciation, but they will see less political resistance to their influx and some of the original flavor and economic diversity that makes cities interesting will last longer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27898  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 6:14 PM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,056
HOLY SHIT NEWS OF THE MONTH,Lend lease and CMK together on south loop river front parcels.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...-in-south-loop
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27899  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 6:24 PM
Kenmore Kenmore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Uptown
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
the problem with this forum is it is a echo chamber. a lot of people of the same sort of economic advantages patting each other on the back and cheer-leading the same causes, which they stand to gain from in one way or another.

im not anti-development by any stretch. but there are a lot of perspectives that are sorely lacking a mouthpiece, not just here but in the broader narrative. theres a pervasive attitude of "i got mine, the outcomes of anyone else is irrelevant"
Amen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27900  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 6:41 PM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stunnies23 View Post
What about the Hispanic families that purchased a home and stand to gain a huge windfall of money when they go to sell. They buy a house for 100k when the neighborhood was gang infested / riddled with violence and later sell it for 250K. If you prevent gentrification, this hard working family can't reap the benefits of the hard work they put in to make their community better. That has to be frustrating and you should be sympathizing with them.
If gentrification is a way to earn an easy buck selling one's home for a profit, then why is there so much opposition to it in these neighborhoods? Just yesterday, I was reading about some locals who put protest signs on a coffee shop that opened recently in Logan Square. I think many residents, parents in particular, would prefer to remain in the community where they've chosen to raise their kids. They don't want to uproot their lives, put their kids in a new school, make new friends, etc.

Having said that, I'm not arguing against any positive change in poor and marginally poor neighborhoods. In my original comment, I acknowledged that there are benefits to gentrification. I just think there should be more of a balance between maintaining the character of the neighborhood and accommodating an influx of new residents.
__________________
flickr
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 > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.