Joe,

Enjoyed the walk. Seems like we only scratched the surface as the neighborhood is large and there are many different types of housing at different price points. Thanks again.

Jeff

[…] Check out the full video profile. […]

jeez, did you guys really have to film this in a Starbucks?

I wouldn't mind so much, but the part about the "varied demographics" and "varied price points" was a little too much.

The 'Neighbors' with the help of the 'Alderman' are trying to write their own Zoning Code for the neighborhood and limit the heights of developments in the area of the affluent that dislike the added traffic, parking competition, home sales competition, yet like very much so the new retail (Starbucks and Chase Banks) that the mixed use developments along the business corridors brings…Check out the Wrightwood Neighbors 'Long Range Plan' on their site and see for yourself how they try to trump the current City Zoning Code.

Help me out on this one, Stokes.

I'm having real difficulty understanding how a plan adopted in 2002 can "trump" the current Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted in May 2004. Can you explain how that works?

The Ordinance now limits the height of development.

Carter,

We did one part of a 5-part video (edited from even more footage) in a Starbucks, which is a very popular spot in that neighborhood. Should we have shot it in a dry cleaners? Check out the other parts - also shot in Lakeshore Athletic Club and the Southport City Saloon, and showing a number of other neighborhood spots.

It was cold that day, which was one of the reasons I wanted part of it indoors.

The housing stock in the area is varied - from rentals to single-families to loft condos to student housing to the Ivy Apartments seniors complex. We did note that the area is largely affluent and largely young - but there is some variety in the populace also. I don't understand the point you're trying to make with your comments in this regard.

Want to walk the same neighborhood with me and show me a different viewpoint on it? I'm open to that.

That's an easy one Joe.
The Wrightwood Neighbors oppose height, like most affluent groups who like their slice of the city to remain exactly that, their slice.

Currently, a developer proposes a building well within the Zoning Ordinance. Let's say it's a B3-3 zone. Maximum height is 65’.
A developer proposes a 5 story structure 64’-6�. Under the maximum height. Let’s say he needs a letter from the Alderman
granting the right to access his parking garage from the alley (Alley Access Letter). The developer approaches the Alderman
with his plans and explaining how he would like to access his parking from the alley and not the main street and is not seeking
a curb cut and will actually add some nice boutique retail on the ground floor since a B district allows for that with residential above.

The Alderman asks the developer if he has presented to the ‘Neighbors’. The developer says no, books a meeting with the ‘Neighbors’
and presents the project to them usually at night at the library. The ‘Neighbors’ oppose the developer using the full allotted height
and wants him to knock it down a floor, thus eliminating a couple of very valuable units. The developer then returns to the Alderman,
reports back the requests of the ‘Neighbors’ to lower the building’s height but does not alter his plans because he is within the Zoning.

The Alderman then withholds the Alley Access Letter, which is needed for permit issuance until the ‘Neighbors’ are happy with the proposal
and the developer folds to the ‘Neighbors’ therefore trumping the Zoning Code.

It’s really a ridiculous scenario that plays out all over our city.

Joe, I just think this take is a bit dishonest.

"The Wrightwood Neighbors" are a community organization, and one with a bit of an agenda, IMO, to call them a neighborhood is quite a stretch, they don't even claim to be one, btw.

and I'm not a Starbucks-hater, but you and I both know they have been used as a sort of frontier, where their arrival marks a "it's safe for the yuppies to come in!"

Diversey & Southport is blocks from where I grew up, Joe, I'd be happy to walk around there with you some time, but be forewarned - you are going to get an earful of stories of factories that were burned down with condos magically appearing shortly thereafter, NIMBYs who moved next to bars and music venues who then complained about the noise, etc.

"and the developer folds to the ‘Neighbors’ therefore trumping the Zoning Code."

Stokes, I see the game differently, but agree it's a game that we taxpayers ultimately foot the bill for, and that distracts our aldermen from more pressing issues such as the CTA and the schools.

in the game, the developers always have the upper hand. what I see more often is they ask for a crazy amount of upzoning they know they will not get, "settling" for upzoning, but not as dramatic.

I don't see height/density restrictions as the sole province of the well-to-do, I see them as a quality of life issue, to make sure we all get fresh air and sunlight, and don't get boxed into Condo Canyons (which are geared towards the affluent, btw).

it's the speculation and market activity that goes along with new condo developments that have caused the real estate price increases, this neighborhood was low density and affordable for a very long time. my father left the area when, in his words, "the neighborhood stopped being a place the factory workers, cops and so on could live next door to a millionaire."

as I always say, the City *needs* the cops, teachers, etc. but we don't need the millionaires. they can take their sky-high property taxes and stay elsewhere, they aren't helping anything except to further political corruption, as is evidenced by the fact that public schools in these gentrified neighborhoods still blow, big time.

great conversation here:

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/2007/03/05/surprise-endorsement-32nd-ward/#comments_last

Good link, Carter. Thanks.

Carter,

Do your homework before you talk about dishonesty.

Wrightwood Neighbors is a neighborhood name as well as the name of the local community organization. This is to differentiate it from the Wrightwood neighborhood on the southwest side.

Check the Department of Planning neighborhood map.

Starbucks comes after the yuppies, not before. It would be folly for them to open a store and wait for the customers to come.

You and Stokes are both right - up to a point - about the developer / neighborhood dance. No way do developers have the upper hand in most neighborhoods. If they did, you'd see a lot more development in this city.

I'm up for the walk and the earful. E-mail me at YoJoe @ YoChicago.com to set up a time and place to meet.

Joe, who made that map? I've seen the "Chicago Neighborhoods Map" which looks *awfully similar* and it once upon a time clearly stated that

"This is the most thorough and comprehensive work ever done on neighborhood boundaries in Chicago history! Endorsed by the Chicago Association of Realtors, Chicago Chamber of Commerce, and the City News Bureau."

That is from my OWN piece, here:

http://www.keepgoing.org/issue7_hijinx/north_center.asp

I note they have altered the description considerably since then.

But just go to wrightwoodneighbors.org, it's a community organization, period, hence the name "neighbors."

I'd say in the homework department you have been schooled, my friend. : )

"No way do developers have the upper hand in most neighborhoods. If they did, you'd see a lot more development in this city."

You have GOT to be kidding me. How on earth do neighbors compete with the deep pockets of developers? I sure as hell can't donate thousands of dollars to local politicians.

"Starbucks comes after the yuppies, not before. It would be folly for them to open a store and wait for the customers to come."

No, they have vision, for better & for worse.

Carter,

You ask - Who made that map?

I thought I made that abundantly clear by a) calling it the Department of Planning map; b) linking it from the City of Chicago site; and c) assuming anyone can see the City of Chicago copyright notice at the lower left corner of the map. How much clearer can it possibly get? And you want to school me? Sigh!

The neighborhood has been known as Wrightwood Neighbors going back decades - once again, to distinguish it from the Wrightwood neighborhood on the southwest side. The fact that the neighborhood organization name overlaps it is completely irrelevant. And, yes, I've been to the organization's Web site repeatedly over a long period of time.

There isn't a retail chain in America that builds completely or even largely in anticipation of demographic change - like every other retailer Starbucks wants to see the customers in place in the store's trading area before they build. Talk to anyone who's knowledgeable on this subject and you'll hear the same answer.

As to whether developers rule - you're terribly off base by thinking it's simply a matter of dollars. It's much more a matter of votes and vote-getter-outers, and developers control precious few of those.

"The neighborhood has been known as Wrightwood Neighbors going back decades"

the organization is decades old, but the fact the name references a single street name ought to be a clue it wasn't some sort of massive organization speaking for an entire neighborhood.

as I grew up right around the street in question, I think I know what the name of my neighborhood was. And it was not "Wrightwood Neighbors."

Regarding the map, the copyright says "2006." Clearly something is screwy there, as the map is obviously based on the neighborhoods map I linked to, which is not by the City (see my post above).

back to class with ya, the operating phrase here is "consider the source."

I am actually quite familiar with the retail subject, as in Logan Square numerous attempts to persuade Trader Joe's to consider our site have been met with a "the demographics aren't there" - yet, a Starbucks has been at Logan and California for almost a decade. So clearly it is not correct to assume that all these chains have the same kinds of planning strategies and requirements for new store openings.

"As to whether developers rule - you're terribly off base by thinking it's simply a matter of dollars. It's much more a matter of votes and vote-getter-outers, and developers control precious few of those."

In the many neighborhood meetings I've attended, I've seen rooms overcrowded with skeptical voters be trumped by a well-heeled and connected developer.

Are you familiar with the Home Depot saga, which helped oust Vilma Colom from office? In that lovely case Dick Mell promised the Irving Park neighbors that the site would be zoned for a townhouse development, then he turned around the next day and personally wrote a letter requesting the zoning be changed to permit the Home Depot/CVS. Copies of the letter were acquired via a FOIA request, and when Vilma inherited the ward she made the mistake of telling the Irving Park Neighbors that they should stop being selfish & should stop getting in the way of progress.

I'm not against progress. As I think I have clearly stated repeatedly, the influx of new blood in the City has had a lot of benefits, my problem is not with the people moving in (with the exception of maybe the 20-something boozehounds in LP), just the lack of a holistic vision & plan.

I am almost religiously against historical revisionism as it is applied in the City, which usually runs along the lines of "this was a horrible, shitty neighborhood until (said person's demographic or special interest group) moved in and cleaned it up."

I feel this way, as it's a huge slap in the face to all the people that hung in there in the neighborhoods that were neglected by the City for decades, where streets fell apart, parks & schools were neglected, etc, etc.

This poster on the Reader blog nails it to a T:

Super Matlik
March 20th - 9:26 p.m.
50+ years living in and around Wicker Park.

Never once did I see Super Matlik out and about, battling the gang bangers.

They and the dope peddlers, (often one and the same), were moved out by the effects that the 'urban pioneers' have had on the neighborhoods' attractiveness and property values.

How many life-long residents were bought-out and/or cheated-out, by the heavily connected, few, real estate hustlers Matlik and his predecessors shilled for?

Why did it take the astronomical appreciation of land/property values to get the routine maintenance and repairs done in this ward?

Was it a case of 'no need to fix things up for the niggers, spics and old-timers, let's wait until they've moved and/or died and we can tax and spend the dollars of the new influx of 'urban pioneer wannabees!'?

Oh, and the real 'urban pioneers? The people who moved here because the low cost of housing and beautiful architecture offset the risks the said gang-bangers/dope-dealers posed to them every day?

They'll just have to pony-up, too!

Or move their asses out, with the rest of the 'deadbeats' and 'undesirables'.

Ted, the Machine, Matlik sure has the experience, alright.

(end post from blog)

btw, I will contact you to set up a time we can walk around, I've got a youngun a working wife, so schedules are tough, but I'm not really so much of a grouch in real life, the Internet exacerbates my "crank factor" considerably.

Carter,

While you were growing up there, I was grown up there - and doing real estate development in the neighborhood, and talking to neighbors, and listening to people call the area Wrightwood Neighbors.

As to the city map - any neighborhood map is going to exhibit a lot of similarities to any other neighborhood map for pretty obvious reasons. The Department of Planning has been studying people's perceptions of neighborhood boundaries, and field surveying those perceptions for a long time. You're obviously unaware of that fact, and of the fact that the Dept of Planning map existed well before Big Stick Productions went into the map business. Isn't it far more likely that Big Stick used the city map as a basis than that the city used Big Stick's.

There's nothing screwy about the copyright date. You need to know how publishers work and how copyrights work and it becomes clearer.

It's really difficult to respond to people who have such a thin and idiosyncratic base of knowledge. Your Trader Joe's anecdote is a good illustration of this: the trading area and demographic base needed to support a Trader Joe's are radically different from what's necessary to support a Starbucks. The analytical process of the site-finders is going to be the same for both, and neither is going to an area in the hope that customers will eventually come. Starbucks is a public company that looks for stores to make a buck from the start, not years down the road.

If I recall correctly, you live in Avondale - where's your Starbucks?

Does a well-heeled and connected developer occasionally trump a neighborhood organization? Sure, but the operative word is "occasionally." It's far more often the case that a well-heeled and connected developer is screwed out of his legal rights and doing what makes sense for a neighborhood by idiotic locals simply because they have the votes.

If the youngun's portable or strollerable, bring it along on our walk.

Does Starbucks really validate a neighborhood anymore? I know of at least two of them in neighborhoods that aren't exactly desireable: 87th & Kedzie, 77th & Cicero. Although the corner of 111th & Kedzie, where another is planned for isn't bad by any means, it's not exactly yuppie heaven. How about 103rd & Cicero? Not yuppies by any means. Or, now that there is one going in at 95th & Western, in Beverly, does that mean Beverly is filled with Yups? Sure, Beverly has a bit of affluence, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts the "Yup" residents won't trampling each other to get in line. The demographic they'll get their will be black. Starbucks started as a pale Yup thing, but it's hardly that anymore. It's about boxing out and ripping marketshare away from everyone else, whether you're the guy who owns the corner cafe or the Indian who owns the 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts. People of all class and color drink coffee and with a business model of cheap product and corporate owned stores, they are now in the mode of going into neighborhoods before and waiting everyone out until they swallow up marketshare with a cheap product and deep pockets. The evil thinking they also have is that people of colors outside of the imperialistic BMW/Rover pales will gobble it up because, "hey, we're poor and we want to do what the classy rich whiteys do." Then they get someone like Magic involved and it's like they're validated by the black community. My point in all of this here is that Starbucks is the closest thing to McDonalds in the United States with the difference being that McDonalds uses the franchise model (in most cases). In certain neighborhoods, it's already happened. The difference is the stark contrast of McDonald's colors, whereas Starbucks tends to blend itself into the background a little more.

Just a sidebar. Proceed as you were.

Joe, I've had the misfortune to listen to the geniuses from the dept of planning numerous times, and the unescapable conclusion I've come to is they are all completely full of it. form their baloney that gentrification and rising property values will decrease property taxes (I will bet an EYE that ain't happening), to their bs that certain neighborhoods, such as the Loop, need TIFs to thrive, to their utter crapola that they've improved traffic due to sensors in the street, and so on.

their only goal is increasing the property tax base, and as such promoting gentrification falls squarely on the agenda.

and anecdotal evidence?

you are in real estate and development, so hearing a specific segment of population talk about Wrightwood Neighbors in that context makes sense (as being a community group they have some influence over zoning), but that hardly proves your point.

you show me a copy of that map with those neighborhoods dated pre-97 or so, and I'll gladly concede the point.

Avondale, I am happy to say, is not gentrifying very quickly (this a very relative thing, mind you). perhaps the lack of a Starbucks, something I'm not looking to publicize, speaks volumes about that. they did open a Starbucks at Irving west of Pulaski many years ago, when it was hardly a gentrified area. the Trader Joe's issue is not "an anecdote," that's the poop as relayed by the alderman and the Log Sq chamber of commerce, of course they have different guidelines as a coffee store, but that's getting so far from the original issue I'm not sure what your point is.

developers lose some battles, but they are clearly winning the war. do you have some evidence for these constitutional assaults on the development industry? how can locals be idiotic when it comes to decisions surrounding zoning (which on the surface are fixed by the zoning code), but the developer whose only concern is a quick profit is what, a capitalist genius?

maybe you can clear something up for me- I've broken all the strings on the violin I play when I listen to the tear-jerking stories of developers who claim they can't make a profit without a massive upzone (this is technically a free govt subsidy as far asd I'm concerned), so what is the profit margin in the industry, and not the little guy buying a piece of property and rehabbing it, but the guys buying a few lots and putting the large buildings in?

I'm in full agreement woodchucklawn, the Starbucks-hating thing is passe for exactly those reasons (unless you own an indpt coffee store and they move across the street), but as a Big 10 school graduate, I can guarantee you, anecdotally of course, that the presence of a Starbucks conveys a certain vague sense of "safety for the white folks," with my caveat being I'm exclusively familiar with the north side.

Wow, all this from a walk through the neighborhood. Has the neighborhood walk been scheduled yet? I reside here now, but would love to get a deeper understanding of neighborhood history.

[…] Check out the full video profile. […]