Quote of the day: The next hot ‘hood

by Joseph Askins on 1/20/10

“How long before it becomes another Bucktown, Wicker Park? I would definitely say in a couple of years.”

- Maurice Ortiz, marketing director at Apartment People, in a RedEye cover story declaring Avondale “Chicago’s Next Hot Hood.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Print
  • email

Related posts:

  1. 565 Quincy’s ‘hood – life in the West Loop
  2. Quote of the day: The bubble hasn’t burst
  3. Quote: The future of vacancies and rents
  4. Quote of the day: an auction postmortem
  5. Quote of the day: the Spire is top priority

{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }

the urban politician 1/23/10 at 4:06 PM

Joe’s final non-point:

“Fourth, the area in question includes a number of suburbs that have completely, disastrously slummed over, in part due to the CHA’s moves.”

^ Exactly! What else do you call a town that has seen an influx of thousands of poverty-dwellers? Not exactly a yuppie enclave, I’d gather? Well duh…

What’s my point? My point is this–city or suburb, you can no longer draw clear lines and say “suburbs are for professionals and the upwardly mobile, the city is for the stranded poor”. You have no basis to say, nor have you in any way shown me any reason to believe, that Chicago’s south and west sides are failing because of people’s “aversion” to urban design guidelines. It’s a weak, baseless, even silly, argument that you’ve shown no ability to defend.

Hakim’s razor: People aren’t moving in droves to the south and west sides due to crime and gangs, and local news reports daily of a shooting “on the south side”. Seems to be the more likely explanation.

Joe Zekas 1/23/10 at 5:27 PM

tup,

At some point you’re going to have to clarify what you think these numbers mean instead of just babbling on about how I don’t understand them.

I understand the studies game all too well. It is, again, easy to cherry-pick your comparison points (what would 2001 vs 2008 look like?) and your coverage areas (What happens if you look at rhe more relevant 5- to 9-county areas?) to arrive at an agenda-driven conclusion. And yes, Brookings can be as agenda-driven as Kotkin is.

How is Chicago helped if its poor depopulate the south side in search of what seems a better life in Harvey or Dolton? How is it helped when new Latino immigrants flock to Cicero or, Berwyn etc. in lieu of Pilsen or Little Village? Again, the list can go on.

I don’t think you have any serious grasp of the meaning of the numbers you’re citing. Poor people abandoning the city is as negative a sign for the city – if not more so – than affluent people doing the same.

Thus far your argument seems to infer: poor people, bad; rich people, good; all suburbs the same.

Added: Was saving this, but I’ll drop it on you now – from your cited article:

“More than likely, experts said, the suburban poor are people who have lived there all along and are grappling with job loss, reduced pay and a flailing economy where one unexpected expense can send them into a tailspin.

Or, to put it another way – again – “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Sir Isaac Newtown 1/25/10 at 10:13 AM

“The readers can amd will judge for themselves which one of us is ducking substantive points, and which one of us has more and more accurate current knowledge of the Chicago scene.”

I just finished reading all of the comments for this article and it is clear as day that Joe was ducking most of the substantive points that TUP made. Not once did Joe give a specific, substantiate example of the mayor and/or aldermen preventing developers from creating suburban-esque developments in the city. Not to mention, even without the smoking gun provided by the Brookings article, it is pretty obvious that the city of Chicago has improved quite a bit more over the past decade, relative to the Chicago suburbs. Just ask all of the companies that have moved offices from the suburbs to the loop, over the past few years or so.

Joe Zekas 1/25/10 at 12:24 PM

Sir Isaac,

Thanks for reminding the readers of your oft-stated biases.

And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.

Sir Isaac Newtown 1/25/10 at 6:05 PM

“And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.”

Maybe 15 years ago. Almost every article I’ve seen mentioning a Chicagoland company moving offices in the past few years has involved the company moving offices to the city and not to the burb, led by United Airlines. Can you name any big companies that have moved from the city to the burbs, in the last 5 years?

the urban politician 1/25/10 at 6:34 PM

^ Sir Isaac, Sara Lee moved to the burbs about 4 yrs ago or so.

But besides that, no. And Joe will be unable to do so either, although he will insist it’s a trend without being able to provide any specific examples–something of a habit of his lately.

Joe Zekas 1/25/10 at 7:07 PM

I can’t think of any in the short time I’m willing to devote to it.

Job growth stats in the city and suburbs are a good proxy. The city lags badly, ans is likely to continue to do so.

According to the latest Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission forecast (spreadsheet), 80% of job growth in the Chicago metro area will occur in the suburbs.

If you go back and understand my original point about the city assembling land for development you’ll see how ridiculous it is to accuse me of failing to provide an example of suburban developers. They didn’t come to the party because the city didn’t throw one and issued no invitations.

Joe Zekas 1/25/10 at 7:10 PM

tup,

You commented while I was writing. And you’ll continue to ignore the data I provide and misrepresent the points I make.

the urban politician 1/25/10 at 8:43 PM

Joe, read your own quotes. I’m not talking about job growth. Do you think I would be so silly to think that Chicago’s job growth matches would ever match that of its suburbs? You specifically said this, and misdirected us all ( (increasingly typical from you) with your unrelated stats above:

“And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.”

the urban politician 1/25/10 at 8:44 PM

^ Pardon my poor grammar above (lack of edit function. I meant to say “Do you think I would be so silly to think that Chicago’s job growth would ever match that of its suburbs?

the urban politician 1/25/10 at 8:45 PM

I’ve had a sherry’s and a few beers, so I’m out of this argument for the rest of the night!!!!!

Joe Zekas 1/25/10 at 9:30 PM

tup,

Sherry? Beer? Have some madeira, m’dear. You shouldn’t drink spirits at this time of night.

the urban politician 1/25/10 at 10:41 PM

Joe, my schedule is weird. What may seem like a Monday to most workers is like Saturday to me. I have the next four days off.

Cheers!

Joe Zekas 1/25/10 at 10:57 PM

tup,

Head on down to Chicago and I’ll buy you a nice lunch. Enjoy your time off.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: