CHICAGO | General Developments

[SteelMonkey]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

whether rich or poor or white or black or northside or southside or conservative or liberal or whatever, these two truths of humanity cut across all lines:

1. people fear change.

2. people are stupid.


we really are all the same.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'm trying to keep my misanthropy at bay, but its getting harder and harder.

Exactly to both!

[the urban politician]

Watching Flannery Fired Up tonight. I’m beginning to think that the Bears move to Arlington Heights may be the real deal. Lightfoot needs to take this seriously

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The one thing that kills me is that in seemingly every corner of the city a usual vocal minority is listened to instead of the majority. You'll have an area with 20,000 property owners, and 10 complain about how some building is 100 feet too tall for their liking and now you have a height drop. It's mind numbing stupid. I think the community having an input is great but these aldermen are truly terrible at this sometimes. The only place I've seen that's fine is a lot of the West Loop. The alderman listens but is smart enough to know they represent a very small minority and says "whatever."

Politicians listen to the people that show up. In any community regardless of culture, those people are usually older folks who have time on their hands and want to protect their home investment.

That's why the shift to online community meetings during Covid was great, because it made it a lot easier for younger folks, working folks, parents, renters, lower-income folks, etc to make their voices heard alongside those of the geezer brigade. So, of course, the smarter NIMBY groups are now demanding a return to in-person meetings because they just enjoy screaming behind a microphone too much.

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

(I don't know that it's a perfect fit, but I think about the recent situation with the Pilsen landmark debacle).

The Pilsen landmark district was bad policy that would have reduced housing supply in a community that desperately needs more of it. If you're a developer who owns property in Pilsen and you're planning a 3-flat with a teardown, you don't walk away when the building is landmarked, you switch to a deconversion instead. Now you need to sell that SFH to a pretty wealthy household who will be taking the place of 3 middle-class households. The substitute program that restricts deconversions is better policy. Now if only the alderman would quit reflexively downzoning properties...

[ardecila]

If even Solis would not let that project move forward, I think it's pretty well hopeless. Will be interesting to see what happens with the next ward map, and the continued demographic shifts in the neighborhood. If they want 25th ward to remain Latino-majority they may need to move more of East Pilsen into a different ward including the Parkworks site.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Guys it's pretty entitled of you to shit on people who have spent their lives dealing with the nussiances associated with concentrated poverty for not wanting more concentrated poverty dumped on their neighborhood. I don't think any of us, particularly the woke as a joke lobby on this board, have any right to dismiss the concerns of these citizens.

The fact is concentrated, segregated, poverty is the problem underlying all the racial tensions of this country. You can't expect a development to add a ton of "affordable" units to an area already struggling with concentrated poverty to help with the situation. I'm all for density wherever and whenever possible, but building giant affordable housing projects in already struggling areas isn't helping. It's not going to drive private investment which is ultimately the only way to break up racial and class segregation.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Guys it's pretty entitled of you to shit on people who have spent their lives dealing with the nussiances associated with concentrated poverty for not wanting more concentrated poverty dumped on their neighborhood. I don't think any of us, particularly the woke as a joke lobby on this board, have any right to dismiss the concerns of these citizens.

The fact is concentrated, segregated, poverty is the problem underlying all the racial tensions of this country. You can't expect a development to add a ton of "affordable" units to an area already struggling with concentrated poverty to help with the situation. I'm all for density wherever and whenever possible, but building giant affordable housing projects in already struggling areas isn't helping. It's not going to drive private investment which is ultimately the only way to break up racial and class segregation.

And the winning post goes to...

[Randomguy34]

I agree with you LVDW that we should avoid generalizing their concerns for developments to be the same as North Side NIMBYs. I do though want to bring up that Auburn Gresham doesn't have much dedicated affordable housing. The affordable housing in the new development will be at 60% AMI, so it will be more expensive than what already exists. The reason why the area is poor is because many middle-class Black families have become poorer over a single generation, relative to inflation and wages. That's why homeownership rates are high, despite the median income being at the poverty line. Despite this, West 79th St has been able to sustain more small-scale retail and new businesses compared to other South Side neighborhoods such as Bronzeville & Woodlawn. The concentration of poverty is a part of the equation, but not the entire picture.

For instance, The Bronx is the poorest congressional district in the US, but has miles of retail districts that are far more vibrant than on the South & West Sides, and even most American cities. This isn't just because NYC is denser, cause South Bronx, and East Brooklyn were truly emptied out in the 70s. With the burned-out buildings, toxic vacant lots, trash overflowing the streets, the situation was much more dire than what Chicago experienced at the time. However, The Bronx & East Brooklyn recovered far more quickly than our South & West Sides, in large part because NYC's abundance of public housing were some of the only forms of stable housing.

Unlike Chicago, NYC's public housing is interwoven into the neighborhood fabric, some even having retail on the 1st floor, and provided a stable base for the last remaining businesses in the area. Despite their reputations, crime levels around the projects were comparable to the neighborhood average, and although maintenance was atrocious, poor residents were overed larger rooms, more greenspace, and more sunlight than their rowhome & tenements beighbors. As the local economy improved, the remaining retail strips provided a seed for new homes and business to be developed and cater a growing population, even if new residents were also as poor as many public housing residents.

Some of Chicago initial public/low-income housing, such as Lathrop, Marshall Field, and Rosenwald are still standing because they followed the NYC model. Even Parkway Gardens, which gets a very bad rep, has more infill, retail, and groceries immediately surrounding it than other parts of East & West Woodlawn. Intuitively, it does make sense that a requires more businesses and decreased likelihood of vacant lots. Poor, dense, communities across the world have also historically been some of the most vibrant. However, because of urban renewal & white flight, US urban planners ended up associating poor people living together being the problem rather than the problem being government interjecting and destroying existing communities. This is why some Libertarian Urbanists argue for supporting poor communities with equitable resources rather than relocating residents as a faster & long-term way to end poverty.

[harryc]

June 24

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I agree with you LVDW that we should avoid generalizing their concerns for developments to be the same as North Side NIMBYs. I do though want to bring up that Auburn Gresham doesn't have much dedicated affordable housing. The affordable housing in the new development will be at 60% AMI, so it will be more expensive than what already exists. The reason why the area is poor is because many middle-class Black families have become poorer over a single generation, relative to inflation and wages. That's why homeownership rates are high, despite the median income being at the poverty line. Despite this, West 79th St has been able to sustain more small-scale retail and new businesses compared to other South Side neighborhoods such as Bronzeville & Woodlawn. The concentration of poverty is a part of the equation, but not the entire picture.

For instance, The Bronx is the poorest congressional district in the US, but has miles of retail districts that are far more vibrant than on the South & West Sides, and even most American cities. This isn't just because NYC is denser, cause South Bronx, and East Brooklyn were truly emptied out in the 70s. With the burned-out buildings, toxic vacant lots, trash overflowing the streets, the situation was much more dire than what Chicago experienced at the time. However, The Bronx & East Brooklyn recovered far more quickly than our South & West Sides, in large part because NYC's abundance of public housing were some of the only forms of stable housing.

Unlike Chicago, NYC's public housing is interwoven into the neighborhood fabric, some even having retail on the 1st floor, and provided a stable base for the last remaining businesses in the area. Despite their reputations, crime levels around the projects were comparable to the neighborhood average, and although maintenance was atrocious, poor residents were overed larger rooms, more greenspace, and more sunlight than their rowhome & tenements beighbors. As the local economy improved, the remaining retail strips provided a seed for new homes and business to be developed and cater a growing population, even if new residents were also as poor as many public housing residents.

Some of Chicago initial public/low-income housing, such as Lathrop, Marshall Field, and Rosenwald are still standing because they followed the NYC model. Even Parkway Gardens, which gets a very bad rep, has more infill, retail, and groceries immediately surrounding it than other parts of East & West Woodlawn. Intuitively, it does make sense that a requires more businesses and decreased likelihood of vacant lots. Poor, dense, communities across the world have also historically been some of the most vibrant. However, because of urban renewal & white flight, US urban planners ended up associating poor people living together being the problem rather than the problem being government interjecting and destroying existing communities. This is why some Libertarian Urbanists argue for supporting poor communities with equitable resources rather than relocating residents as a faster & long-term way to end poverty.

Yes, this ^!. LVDW, if you have ever visited a Favella in Rio you would not claim that concentration of poverty in and of itself prevents retail/social/economic activity/mobility...

[the urban politician]

Concentrated poverty is not an argument for keeping lots vacant in low income areas

And for those of us who want our cities dense and walkable, the alternative (big box stores and huge parking lots) are not an acceptable alternative.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

I agree with you LVDW that we should avoid generalizing their concerns for developments to be the same as North Side NIMBYs. I do though want to bring up that Auburn Gresham doesn't have much dedicated affordable housing. The affordable housing in the new development will be at 60% AMI, so it will be more expensive than what already exists. The reason why the area is poor is because many middle-class Black families have become poorer over a single generation, relative to inflation and wages. That's why homeownership rates are high, despite the median income being at the poverty line. Despite this, West 79th St has been able to sustain more small-scale retail and new businesses compared to other South Side neighborhoods such as Bronzeville & Woodlawn. The concentration of poverty is a part of the equation, but not the entire picture.

For instance, The Bronx is the poorest congressional district in the US, but has miles of retail districts that are far more vibrant than on the South & West Sides, and even most American cities. This isn't just because NYC is denser, cause South Bronx, and East Brooklyn were truly emptied out in the 70s. With the burned-out buildings, toxic vacant lots, trash overflowing the streets, the situation was much more dire than what Chicago experienced at the time. However, The Bronx & East Brooklyn recovered far more quickly than our South & West Sides, in large part because NYC's abundance of public housing were some of the only forms of stable housing.

Unlike Chicago, NYC's public housing is interwoven into the neighborhood fabric, some even having retail on the 1st floor, and provided a stable base for the last remaining businesses in the area. Despite their reputations, crime levels around the projects were comparable to the neighborhood average, and although maintenance was atrocious, poor residents were overed larger rooms, more greenspace, and more sunlight than their rowhome & tenements beighbors. As the local economy improved, the remaining retail strips provided a seed for new homes and business to be developed and cater a growing population, even if new residents were also as poor as many public housing residents.

Some of Chicago initial public/low-income housing, such as Lathrop, Marshall Field, and Rosenwald are still standing because they followed the NYC model. Even Parkway Gardens, which gets a very bad rep, has more infill, retail, and groceries immediately surrounding it than other parts of East & West Woodlawn. Intuitively, it does make sense that a requires more businesses and decreased likelihood of vacant lots. Poor, dense, communities across the world have also historically been some of the most vibrant. However, because of urban renewal & white flight, US urban planners ended up associating poor people living together being the problem rather than the problem being government interjecting and destroying existing communities. This is why some Libertarian Urbanists argue for supporting poor communities with equitable resources rather than relocating residents as a faster & long-term way to end poverty.

I appreciate this response. After having lived in NYC for awhile, it truly blows my mind how some of the not-so-well off areas still have really vibrant commercial/retail strips whereas in Chicago, there's not as many in similar types of circumstances. I'm not going to pretend to know all the nuances of when to and when to not place business in an area. I have driven thru 79th street in Auburn Gresham more than 5 times though (last time was 5 years ago) and had noticed there were definitely businesses there.

Now as far as the data goes, I think we should look at some numbers of Auburn Gresham and some surrounding community areas. Of course there was the pandemic, so these numbers could very well be off, but it's anyone's guess right now as to those numbers, so this is all we have:

2019 Households Making $50K+/year
Washington Heights: 9963 households
Ashburn: 8764
Auburn Gresham: 6058
Chatham: 5189
West Englewood: 2437
Englewood: 1767

Total: 34,178 households (39.8%)

2019 Households Making $100K+/year
Ashburn: 3964 households
Washington Heights: 3519
Auburn Gresham: 2035
Chatham: 1631
West Englewood: 692
Englewood: 384

Total: 12,225 households (14.2%)

Change in $100K+/year Households 2013-2019
Auburn Gresham: +785 households (+62.8%)
Washington Heights: +749 households (+32.3%)
Ashburn: +497 households (+14.3%)
Chatham: +464 households (+39.8%)
West Englewood: +189 households (+37.6%)
Englewood: +24 households (+8.6%)

Total: +2708 households (67.3% of the total household increase of the areas combined)

Change in $50K-$100K/year Households 2013-2019
Washington Heights: +551 households (+9.4%)
Chatham: +316 households (+9.7%)
Ashburn: +184 households (+4%)
Auburn Gresham: -67 households (-1.6%)
Englewood: -73 households (-5%)
West Englewood: -95 households (-5.2%)

Total: +816 households (+20.3% of the total household increase of the areas combined)


I am not an expert or even close in this, so you'll have to tell me but having nearly 35,000 households in the general area (not counting others semi near by) who are making at least $50K/year and of those, over 12,000 are making $100K+ seem to me that there's enough to actually support various vibrant retail/commercial in spots. My guess is that crime in certain areas is preventing it from being realized to a greater potential. At the same time, we can certainly go into topics such as getting loans from financial institutions but maybe we shouldn't go there, even though it could play a big role in a more local business trying to form..

[Randomguy34]

^ I completely agree with your analysis! Having over 35,000 residents making over $50k is a solid base for new thriving businesses on West 79th St. That alone though wasn't enough to revive retail districts, until recently, in Bronzeville & Woodlawn which rapidly fell off during urban renewal and from massive population loss. I'm saying that The Bronx & East Brooklyn started even rougher, but bounced back more quickly because of their abundance of public housing. Public housing that was integrated into the urban fabric, rather than segregated like Cabrini-Green & Robert Taylor, is what kept the last few business districts alive and able to regrow. So low-income housing doesn't necessarily lead to suffering retail districts

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Concentrated poverty is not an argument for keeping lots vacant in low income areas

And for those of us who want our cities dense and walkable, the alternative (big box stores and huge parking lots) are not an acceptable alternative.

Also affordable housing does not equal derelict Cabrini-Green. It’s going to be a new building in good condition that will attract decent working-class tenants (who might’ve left for the suburbs) for at least a generation.

What doomed Chicago public housing was the complete lack of a long-term plan for high-rise maintenance and vetting and eventually the lack of demand from all but the most dysfunctional of families.

This particular developer knows what they’re getting into, and they probably wouldn’t propose new construction with the intention of becoming a slumlord.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Yes, this ^!. LVDW, if you have ever visited a Favella in Rio you would not claim that concentration of poverty in and of itself prevents retail/social/economic activity/mobility...

Not sure which Rio favelas you are referring to--I think the kind of stunted retail/economic activity you find in favelas with which I am familiar actually makes the case that poverty begets poverty. Very little economic activity in the favelas "seed" any future resilience in the sense that randomguy34 suggests happens in some neighborhoods here.
That said, I agree with galleryfox that we can't lump modern affordable housing in with really poor places. In many cases, affordable housing is a step (or several steps) up and makes it more likely for incremental-yet-genuine change to happen.

[harryc]

June 24

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

Not sure which Rio favelas you are referring to--I think the kind of stunted retail/economic activity you find in favelas with which I am familiar actually makes the case that poverty begets poverty. Very little economic activity in the favelas "seed" any future resilience in the sense that randomguy34 suggests happens in some neighborhoods here.
That said, I agree with galleryfox that we can't lump modern affordable housing in with really poor places. In many cases, affordable housing is a step (or several steps) up and makes it more likely for incremental-yet-genuine change to happen.

Yeah, I'm kinda confused by the holding up of favelas as if they are evidence that concentrated poverty doesn't stop social mobility. Last time I checked most favelas were crime ridden poverty traps overrun with organized crime much like our own urban ghettos.

And I don't disagree with any of your observations about today's affordable housing not being the filing cabinets for the poor of the urban renewal era. I don't agree that affordable housing isn't a valid reason to oppose such things. I don't disagree that all vacant lots should be destroyed.

I just think everyone not living in these areas should first check their privledge before shitting on the critics actually living in these areas who have life experiences most of us can't even fathom.

I also think the demands for retail are totally valid, as mentioned above, it's not like there's nobody making any money living in these areas. I've come to the conclusion that if you want to point to an example of structural racism in American society, this is it. Retail doesn't exist in these areas because "urban youths" (i.e. black people) are "scary" and the corporate boards and business owners of America are making a collective subconscious choice to avoid "scary" areas. I can't tell you the number of times this or that African American neighborhood comes up in conversation in the Real Estate world and the conversation inevitably ends with "that's a great location" or "there are beautiful buildings here" or "that corner sees tons of traffic" but, but, but, "that's a rough neighborhood".

That same conversation plays out over and over again across America from small time investors to fortune 500 real estate departments. These decisions are not being driven by reason, just look at how successful the Whole Foods and Starbucks in Englewood has been, it clearly can work. The collective boycott of these areas boils down to nothing more than the nagging idea that "black neighborhoods are scary" lingering int he minds of thousands of real estate decision makers across the country.

I've mentioned it before, but I've realized that continuing to stick only to the California Pink Line because I know I make money there and I know it's a safe investment makes me no better than the others driving this trend. I just got an offer accepted on a large building near the Kedzie Pink Line and am putting my money where my mouth is. I've got a 5700 SF cross fit gym already signed on to take 1/3 of the first floor. This business is owned by an existing tenant of mine who grew up in LV. I'm also in talks with one of the oldest African American owned coffee companies in Chicago to open a roastery and coffee shop on ground floor as well.

Why? Because it's fucking rediculous that there isn't a single gym or Coffee shop in North Lawndale. There are plenty of people living there in nice ass buildings who make decent money. My bet is that I can make outsized returns to boot because these people are all leaving the area for a cup of coffee or a workout. I believe my tenants will capture this unmet demand and prove the theory that retail doesn't exist in these areas primarily because of latent racism correct.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by harryc

June 24

What’s with that condo building in the back looking all abandoned.

[Chi-Sky21]

Thats Kenny Williams old bar Market. Not sure whats up with that one , it has looked like that for a long time now.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I just think everyone not living in these areas should first check their privilege before shitting on the critics actually living in these areas who have life experiences most of us can't even fathom.

Pretty good advice for living, generally. But then I would say that all God's children (even long-time developers/investors who some might think are the spawn of Satan) also have experiences that only they know and understand. So it isn't enough to say "you don't live that experience so your views aren't valid" which is invoking just another BS privilege (and I don't think you're saying that). "Experience" is a double-edged sword--it can reveal things others can't see but can also distort understanding because of the immediacy and the emotion connected to it. Sometimes distance prompts a more rational assessment.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Retail doesn't exist in these areas because "urban youths" (i.e. black people) are "scary" and the corporate boards and business owners of America are making a collective subconscious choice to avoid "scary" areas.

Unfortunately crime statistics suggest that there are scarier and less-scary parts of town and the former are typically minority areas. Recognizing that isn't racist... just the way things are for lots of reasons everyone knows (or theorizes) about. I think it's rational to avoid scary areas--I will go on record as not wanting to live in a statistically-defined high-crime area. Bigot that I am

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I've got a 5700 SF cross fit gym already signed on to take 1/3 of the first floor. This business is owned by an existing tenant of mine who grew up in LV. I'm also in talks with one of the oldest African American owned coffee companies in Chicago to open a roastery and coffee shop on ground floor as well... I believe my tenants will capture this unmet demand and prove the theory that retail doesn't exist in these areas primarily because of latent racism correct.

Good on you for walking the walk. Most of us wouldn't do that. I really hope you succeed in providing a model of investment in marginalized communities that need a catalyst to shift the narrative. That would be amazing. I would just say that it's a significant oversimplification to say it's all latent racism. That just writes it off as irrational bigotry in which case one misses confronting the other real problems at play (i.e., racism may play a role, but it's not the major factor for most smart investors).

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I would just say that it's a significant oversimplification to say it's all latent racism. That just writes it off as irrational bigotry in which case one misses confronting the other real problems at play (i.e., racism may play a role, but it's not the major factor for most smart investors).

I believe LVDW is probably talking about systematic racism here, which is definitely a/the fundamental factor causing historic disinvestment in these neighborhoods. Unfortunately, individual investors claiming to not be "irrationally bigoted" because they don't want to invest in a neighborhood that has gone to shit over decades of disinvestment doesn't change that.

That said, I agree with your sentiment here.

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I really hope you succeed in providing a model of investment in marginalized communities that need a catalyst to shift the narrative. That would be amazing.