Dubin…

I should add that we'll check with developers as suggestions come in, and will let you know if you've come up with the right answer.

Can't be Dubin. Doesn't have the signature look of a Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture building.
Is the developer The Resurrection Project?

It looks like the wild west down there…I think I saw a tumbleweed bouncing along the old run down and decrepit train tracks…

Window choice is terrible. The older building on the right has windows that are 10x better.

horrible, just horrible, I don't even want to know how is doing this.

It is starting to look a whole lot like Wicker Park down there. Everywhere I've been lately, there is a new restaurant opening like Honky Tonk or Take Me Out. There are also some new boutiques. And as Channel's 7's Hound from Hungary noted last week, cafes on a lot of corners.

UICstudent,

Don't know what you mean by "down there."

Head on down to Sangamon and Cullerton - you won't see anything at all that reminds you of Wicker Park.

What is it about BBQ and Chinese take-out that looks like Wicker Park?

I guess that means "down there" from my school, or "down there" from Wicker Park, so I'm actually quite familiar with the area, moreso than your simple mind could ever be.

In the photo above, one can actually see what I mean by having a similarity to Wicker Park. Notice the building to the left of the new development. Wouldn't that pre-date the Chicago Fire in much the same way that 80% of Pilsen does? How about that industrial building across the tracks? Wouldn't that bar some resemblence to many of the buildings that have been converted to lofts in Wicker Park?

The changing face of the area's commercial face is also present. Sure, Take Me Out does look like a little take out Chinese place. But it's not. If you had actually stepped foot in the place, you would realize that it isn't (it's also got some press attached to it, if you're that lazy). How about that Honky Tonk, has it not gotten praise from almost every outlet in town in much the same way Smoque (a restaurant your website trumpeted last year) did?

So what do these two places have in common? They are starting to make the neighborhood in much the same way Wicker Park started to in the last 20 years. I'm sure you're far too blind to see, but you have new boutiques in the form of OMD, and Knee Deep that have recently opened. You have the coffee shops. You have the galleries on Halsted and another 30 galleries sprinkled throughout the area. You also have Indie giant Thrill Jockey Records around 18th and Laflin. The list could go on forever, but you would rather sit on your perch and criticize the area for whatever reason your feel necessary to criticize it. That is your right. But you should probably issue some sort of disclaimer regarding your views, seeing as these developers obviously aren't in your pocket.

One more thing: my school has a lot to do with this, and a lot of what you see (if you actually head down there without your blinders) in the coming months and years will prove this.

UIC Urban Planning and Affairs student

UICstudent,

My simple mind was making a simple point: you apparently haven't been to Cullerton and Sangamon, the subject of this post.

Go there. Then go to Wicker Park and try to find the lofts you're babbling about. Try to find any single scene in Wicker Park that resembles the one at Sangamon and Cullerton.

Do your homework first, dear student.

Here's a disclaimer for you: I dropped out of a Master's program in urban planning many years ago after realizing it was a dead-end path to a life of low-paying boring jobs with little or no real influence on urban planning.

Those who swell with pride about a record label being in their neighborhood need to find other "amenities" to promote. I don't think anyone moves to Ravenswood BECAUSE of Touch & Go, and while Drag City's office is conveniently located near a few active art spaces (AV-aerie comes to mind), I don't see it spurring on a new era for the Kinzie Industrial Corridor. The development on Halsted is attractive, and the restaurants and shops UICstudent mentions shouldn't be discounted, but I'm not going to look for a home just in hopes of seeing John McEntire or (God forbid) a Friedberger walking down the street. That doesn't impress me or my friends. That's just me, though.

I'd also suggest that anyone who doth protest so angrily about Pilsen being the next Wicker Park, especially with such little antagonizing, needs to calm down just a little bit and loosen that hair-trigger just a tad. Anyone who cops an "I know something you don't know" attitude about Pilsen of all places probably doesn't realize that these changes are old news — they were happening well before your pre-frosh orientation. I think all Zekas has tried to do whenever he writes about Pilsen is to remind its boastful (and transient) student population that there's a lot to the 'hood that HASN'T changed.

Oh lord, I am being schooled by two Joes who moved here from out of town (one of whom pays the other, one of whom is paid for by developers!!) Tell me more Askins, you seem to have such a good idea of what people are looking for, like an Eleanor Friederburg sighting. You know nothing other than what you're paid to tell people, and it is reflected in your writing. Your friend Zekas has a history of attacking any and all things he isn't fond of (like places where he isn't a landowner), though his site is "ubiased."

That's also a pretty funny line about my pre-frosh orientation. It would be funnier if you hadn't just gotten off of Amtrak from Columbia Mizzou last year. Next time you and Joe want to attempt to school someone about Chicago, make sure that this person hasn't lived and breathed its pollution longer than your combined stay. People might actually take you seriously, too!

Zekas, YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you hop on the phone to your shill to defend you. Get your own boots on the ground and look at an area before you criticize it. Actually spend a couple of days there before your criticize it so publicly. The two of you know all there is to know about "nothing," and your website reflects this.

Well this is fun.

Zekas has been here 30+ years or so, yet he is an interloper. Interesting.

As for that area having a similarity to the Wicker Park of 1988 that is probably somewhat valid. It initally wasn't stated that way. It is clear that over the next few years and decades the area will likely "gentrify" and become more like Wicker Park at least in terms of demographics and income. What the "vibe" will be I have little idea. Just like I have no idea about the Friederburg reference. I guess I could look it up, but spewing opinions with little understanding of the facts is more fun.

As for the reference to being an Urban Planning student sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Keep it quiet. It reminds me of people, largely of the North Shore varieties, who once you meet them manage to tell you what university they graduated from in the first two minutes of discussion. It just ain't right.

C'mon, give me a little credit: Even I would hit "ignore" if I saw Joe's number popping up on my cell phone during the weekend. A man needs some R&R once in a while, and it can be hard finding new ways to spend all that shill money when the boss is always on the phone.

And for the record, that was one long Amtrak ride from CoMo to Chicago. Felt like I was sitting on that damn train for five years. I've got a few vague memories of a long holdover in the Ozarks prior to stepping off at Union Station, too, although that may have been a dream. Either way, it's been a while since I've had a slice from Shakespeare's.

Anyway, I'm glad UIC digs the site (if not its managers) enough to keep commenting. Maybe we can rely on him (or her) to help us with the question I posed in this post.

UICstudent,

How did you get to be such an angry little snot in so few years?

You're still ducking my simple point. My boots have been on the ground at Sangamon and Cullerton and I've suggested that yours haven't. My boots walked every block of Wicker Park before your parents slid yours on.

There's no physical or planning resemblance between Cullerton and Sangamon and any point in Wicker Park.

If your reading skills were a bit more advanced - say to the 5th or 6th grade level - you'd see that there's no criticism of Pilsen to be found in the comment that set off your flaky rant; just a simple observation.

Stop imagining phone conversations that didn't happen and address my simple point. You can do that, can't you?

Irishpirate,

I've been hearing Pilsen hype for 20 years now - starting with the Podmajerskys. Pilsen today largely resembles the Pilsen of 20 years ago.

I started hearing Wicker Park hype in 1974 when I first moved to Chicago. Twenty years later some of it came to pass, and parts of Wicker Park are still far from gentrified.

Our urban planning student may or may not learn some day that coffee shops, boutiques and restaurants have little or no impact on development. Employment and demographics are far more important drivers of growth and change.

The Resurrection Project is not the developer of this project. Any new word on who might be?

Joe,

The eastern end of Pilsen does seem to be "gentrifying" at a decent or indecent pace depending on your point of view. As for the western end the change seems much slower. I'd have to go down to Cullerton and Sangamon to get a better idea of what is happening right around there, as I don't recall being there for years. I'll put it on my biking agenda for warmer weather. The best way I know to see lotsa hoods is by bike.

Generally, better retail and restaurants follow new residents into a hood. The only exception I can think of is the "west loop" where fine restaurants largely preceded new residents and acted as a "draw".

The "good or evil" of gentrification generally takes decades to fully occur. Lincoln Park starting "taking off" in the late 60's or so and even twenty years later there was residual gang crap going on. Lakeview experienced the same basic phenomena only a 1/2 decade or decade later.

Wicker Park, Bucktown, Uptown etc still have serious issues with crime, gangs, and in Uptown's case retail also. That doesn't mean they aren't improving.

The idea that neighborhoods change overnight is largely wrong. Whatever is happening at Sangamon and Cullerton will take decades to unfold.

I'll check back in 2028 and see how things look.

There is far to much attacking going on by both sides around here. Amusing nonetheless.

For the record, I'd say planning cities of the future is far more gratifying than providing a virtual arena for people who think they know development, architecture, planning, etc.

Stokes,

Arena providers at least get to provide arenas.

City planners seldom get to plan cities. Much of their time is spent counting curb cuts, sketching the need for new sewer systems, and filling drawers with unread and unreadable studies. Except at the grubbiest level - where they're reacting rather than planning - I'd argue that planners have virtually no impact on how cities evolve. Private-sector planners have more impact than public-sector ones when it comes to large projects.

YoChicago has little impact either - but at least there's some immediacy to it and fewer pretensions.

If the money spent on planners - especially the academic planners - had been spent on physical improvements instead this city would be a far better place.

Stokes,

like you I do find aspects of this virtual world amusing.

I also find it amusing that you seem to think that "planning cities of the future" is a career.

Imagonna have to change and modify my prayer for the city.

"Lord, save my city from those who claim to love it. Save my city from those who want to "plan" it. Save my city from those who fear change. Save my city from the politicians. Save my city from the fly by night developers. Save my city from the NIMBYs who secretly hate it. Save my city from the "community" leaders and the groups they run. Save my city from those who fear density. Save my city from those who fear "others". Lord, save my city from my own silliness. Save my city."

Amen. The rant is ended go in peace and spend thy green stuff in "my city".

If you want to have any say in city planning, you don't get some goofy degree in "urban planning". You start out as a small developer, drop some cash into the alderman's campaign during the next election, and then you've got a shot at having your voice count. Once you gain more name recognition and influence, then you can actually plan significant urban changes.

You guys crack me up.

There is a story in the Chicagoland Bike Federation's current newsletter about a new employee working on bicycle planning issues, and she is a student in UIUC's urban planning master's course.

Urban planning is a lot deeper than relatively petty arguments about slight zoning changes and shifts in non-essential boutique/specialty shops.

And Joe, if you don't think the presence of say, a Starbucks isn't a catalyst for gentrification, you need to read more blogs and neighborhood-focused stories - it is very common to hear quotes along the lines of "but it's up and coming, and did you know a Starbucks is going up at blahblahblah?"

Starbucks is the easy target to pick on of course, and in fact I hear they are closing numerous stores across the country as they are oversaturated and nobody really needs a $5 mocha latte, but there is no doubt that some people are not attracted to areas without chain stores they recognize and feel comfortable patronizing, that's just a fact neither inherently positive or negative. the larger topic of why people shop where they do was the basis of McDonald's ascendancy, consistency at all franchises, both quality, price and service, first in our area, then state wide, nation-wide, etc.

consistency in branding (also for better and for worse) works, and relatively upper income people who are the ones gentrifying are certainly no exception to this. of course, they are far from the only social group out there looking to establish themselves across Chicago, we are still very much a city of immigrants, who tend be poor, and who tend to shop at places geared towards what they had in the old country.

Carter,

You've got a serious post hoc ergo propter hoc problem here. It's not one that any Starbucks leasing agent would make.

Starbucks is a lagging rather than a leading indicator of ogentrification. And I don't think there's one in Pilsen yet.

On a separate note, in my limited experience with them (most recently East Garfield Park), UIC urban planning studies are the poster child for wrong-headed irrelevancy. The money that subsidizes non-needy professors and their grad students would be far better spent, with more lasting impact, on hiring locals to plant trees or clean streets. Or buying bicycles for the local kids.

Carter,

maybe the bicycle urban planner can "rejigger" Belmont so it will be easier for you to run over skateboarders with your Starbucks fueled SUV.

I kid.

Joe Zekas is correct. I just looked there are no Starbucks in Pilsen. I guess that means all that gentrification on the eastern end is just mythical.

Hell we have at two Starbucks in Uptown. Throw in the Seattles Best and the independents and the waning number of street hookers have a place to grab some java. Of course when you earn your money that way you may prefer to get a bigger jolt than caffeine for your money.

I don't think Carter has easy access to a Starbucks in Avondale either.

We have one going up at Belmont & Pulaski, oh, the joy.

But I'd argue there are no hard facts/agreements regarding even what gentrification really is, much less what its indicators are.

High incomes (and how high)? People between the ages of 20 - 29? White folks? Not enough.

Nevertheless, I didn't in any way suggest Starbucks is the end-all, be-all, of course it is not, and of course it is a lagging indicator, as they use demographic stats when locating new franchises.

Starbucks is something touted as a sign a neighborhood is "up and coming" however, would either of you really disagree with that? I'd say the larger phenomenon is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, for lack of a better term.

I'd highly recommend this book btw, just finished it and it features loads of interesting charts/maps made from census data, something urban planners do to help enlighten the populace.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/193632.ctl

Hudson, John C. Chicago: A Geography of the City and Its Region. Co-published with Center for American Places. 356 p., 35 color plates, 49 duotones, 116 maps, and 1 chart.

My old neighborhood in New Jersey was gentrified during the early 60s by Cubans - doctors, lawyers, merchants, teachers, etc. who had fled Castro.

Prior to their arrival the neighborhood was equally split among blacks (colored, back then), low income whites and Puerto Ricans.

The Cubans moved on after gaining an economic toehold - and discovering the neighborhood wasn't worth gentrifying.

So you'd go squarely with the income factor, I take it? I agree, but it doesn't seem to be how the issue is spun in Chicago, where the arrival of a group of broke white kids in their late teens or early twenties is heralded as gentrification.

Have you ever read Street Signs, Joe? You'd love this, it's 27 years old and has a huge chunk dedicated to Pilsen and it's alleged impending gentrification. And sweet, I see my Mom's original signed copy may actually be worth something, whoodathunkit?

Street Signs Chicago: Neighborhood and Other Illusions of Big-City Life (Hardcover)

by Bowden, Charles And Lew Kreinberg

It wasn't income, Carter. The Cubans didn't have much of it when they came to my neighborhood and they moved on once they did.

They brought a different set of values - back then we called them bourgeois values with exactly the sense of antagonism you'd expect from the use of that word.

I don't think demographic change in the form of broke white kids generates very much heat in Chicago neighborhoods today. It seems to me that the clashes are still values-based rather than income-based. What I hear neighborhood people saying is that the newcomers don't respect what they respect, and don't have a "decent" set of values.

I moved to DePaul in 1978 when it was just on the cusp of gentrification, and moved on in 1987 when it had fully come to pass. Couldn't stand living among yuppies and didn't want my kids to grow up among manner-deprived savages who valued money and things more than people. I had neighbors who moved on for much the same reason - and we all either had higher incomes than most of the newcomers or could have easily afforded to stay.

Thanks for the book tip. I've added it to my "some day" list.

"Couldn't stand living among yuppies and didn't want my kids to grow up among manner-deprived savages who valued money and things more than people."

Glad you could escape all of this in the North Shore!

I'm not sure that places like Logan Square, Pilsen, Uptown, and Rogers Park will be fully gentrified in a manner comparable to Lincoln Park any time soon. These areas are all "gentrifying", but there will be a long period of upper-middle, middle, and lower class residents sharing the neighborhood. And the richer of these groups will undoubtedly get frustrated with the slow pace of change and the continued incidents of crime, while the long-time residents will enjoy the slightly lower crime and clamour for affordable housing so they can stay.

Interesting analysis.

In Logan Square at least the "current" residents most definitely see young white poor artist types as harbingers of gentrification, just see the Sachs building controversy right now (Alderman Colon wants to turn the intersection into the new North, Damen and Milwaukee!"). It puts people like myself in a somewhat funny spot, who have sympathies both ways.

I just started At Home in the Loop: How Clout and Community Built Chicago's Dearborn Park
by Lois Wille (Author)

You'd like this one Joe, it starts off with "a tale actually featuring the developers as the good guys" or something along those lines. Very fascinating look into "how the sausage was made" so far.

"And the richer of these groups will undoubtedly get frustrated with the slow pace of change and the continued incidents of crime, while the long-time residents will enjoy the slightly lower crime and clamour for affordable housing so they can stay."

Beautifully phrased summary, I could point you to dozens and dozens of examples of posts expressing this (in a more long-winded fashion) on the Logan Square yahoo group.

Some people move in and seem to think that Lincoln Park should be moving in with them simultaneously, obviously these people have zero understanding of the process by which LP evolved.

I also doubt most neighborhoods will ever go as gentrified as LP, the housing stock just isn't as stellar. I remember visiting kids' houses in LP in the 70s where small families lived in these old mansions, the amount of space was unreal - there's not much like that as you go west, and what is like that costs millions.

…although, I should add one of the ineresting conclusions of the Geography of the Region book I finished was that O'Hare is expected to grow in terms of regional importance and might end up being the equivalent of the Loop, creating a NW axis of overall economic growth.

that was certainly my thought when we selected Avondale, I figured the Blue Line would never be allowed to deteriorate as it's our showcase/main transport to tourists coming in from O'Hare, plus the expressway opens up a much larger region in terms of quick travel times. Throw in the fact that the Blue line is a subway at Belmont & Logan, and it means you can live steps from it without having the same racket you would get being that close to the elevated L lines.

Lincoln Park is a singularity, not likely ever to be repeated in Chicago.

It had a strong institutional base - hospitals, schools (DePaul, Parker, Latin, etc.), the zoo, the Historical Society, high-quality housing stock, and immediate proximity to the park and lakefront. It also had relatively healthy retail and nightlife, good density, and public transportation.

It was also isolated from much of the city's rot - buffered on the south by the emerging Gold Coast anchored by the development of Sandburg Village, on the east by the park and lake, and on the west by the Clybourn industrial corridor.

No other Chicago gentrification candidate has this combination of starting assets.

More important, a bloody fortune in governmental subsidies went into the area in the 60's and 70s in the form of urban renewal, ifrastructure improvements, crime-fighting, an informal property tax cap in some areas, and low-interest rehab loans.

Another point I could make, however, is that many neighborhoods in the middle of gentrification are actually pretty good places to live as is. They have urban problems, but are not the urban hell you would find in places like Lawndale or Englewood. I guess it's a matter of what you're willing to tolerate at a specific point in your life. I'm perfectly happy in Buena Park, which is technically part of Uptown, but is relatively crime free in comparison to, say, Broadway and Wilson. Also, I'm very close to Lakeview and can enjoy that neighborhood by walking for five minutes. Uptown proper could be frozen in time and Helen Shiller crowned queen of Uptown forever, and this would still be a pretty nice place to live in the city.

I still have high hopes for the northern lakefront neighborhoods and Evanston. The ingredients are there. We'll never have the Olmstead-designed part of Lincoln Park, the zoo, DePaul, etc., but we have Loyola, The Riviera, The Aragon, great parks, and good access to the Loop. The only thing holding Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park back is politics.

I should have left Evanston off that list, since the eastern half of town is entirely nice already!

Joe, surely you'd have to credit/blame Cabrini Green's creation/removal as well.

I'd say that's where Uptown is similar, in that what one City hand puts down, which is to some degree suppressing gentrification, the other can remove at a later date.

That's not to say I support removing safety net institutions, but it would be hard IMO to ignore the impact that removing Cabrini Green had - I rode the 8 Halsted from Wellington to Roosevelt more or less regularly from 85 - 89, and I recall the days when Cabrini kids peppered the bus with rocks and eggs right in the middle of the day around North Ave.

Carter,

Cabrini kids could afford eggs? Even if they could, there was no place for them to buy them.

Cabrini was never much of a factor in Lincoln Park, except for the stretch immediately along North Ave (smash and grab territory) and the Orchard / Howe / Burling blocks south of Armitage, which were pedestrian corridors to Waller before it became Lincoln Park High.

UptownR,

You said: "The only thing holding Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park back is politics."

I think that's the least of it. What's holding back those areas today is the growth in acceptability of other areas which advanced while they stagnated. Uptown, Edgewater, RP now compete - where once they didn't - with Bucktown, Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village, Logan Square, Ravenswood, parts of Avondale and Albany Park, the South Loop, the West Loop and more.

Also, as I've contended before, the housing stock in those areas - a high percentage of studio and one bedroom apartments geared for transients and the elderly - is also a serious barrier to change. The kids can double up and triple up far desirable (to them) areas for the same or less rent per person than having their own studio or one in Uptown / Edgewater / Rogers Park.

You don't have the kid perspective, Joe, it's an important one, especially if you are trying to understand what stops Chicago from being "family friendly" and leads to families moving to the burbs.

Cabrini kids aren't/weren't necessarily broke as in no cash in their pockets, there's plenty of money going around any ghetto, it just isn't of a level to be invested in stocks and bonds or college educations (for the most part, I'm sure there are exceptions).

As one who walked to approx Armitage & Halsted for grade school, went to Oz Park's daycamp, played summer T-Ball and baseball there through DePaul, had numerous friends at LPHS (I got in and almost went to the IB program there), etc. let me assure you, Cabrini Green had a very large presence in the area - at least up to Fullerton - that by no means stopped at North Ave.

I knew plenty of kids whose families relocated due to concerns about gangs, kids who got mugged/assaulted, etc. I'd still maintain only a small percentage of the residents were bad, but the density of the projects meant there were always a substantial number of bored, aimless teens with nothing to do but wander the streets and cause trouble, and they loomed rather large to small children.

No place to buy them? You don't give kids much credit for mobility, I see.

I largely agree with the Joe Zekas take on the gentrification of Lincoln Park. The geography and the social institutions largely were unique. The only partial disagreement I have is on the "high quality" housing stock. The relatively low density, compared to other lakefront neighborhoods, of the housing stock away from the immediate lakefront played an important role. Now there are obviously many exceptions, but much of the housing stocks in other less gentrified neighborhoods is actually potentially nicer than what is in PARTS of Lincoln Park. We could back and forth endlessly comparing individual blocks so it really is a teeny weeny wittle point.

I also agree that other neighborhoods are much less likely to reach the level of "gentrification" as Lincoln Park. Partially it is the housing stock and partially it is the public or quasi public ownership of the housing stock. The low income high rise at Lawrence and Winthrop is a huge problem for that section of Uptown.

I think that is a longer term issue than the number of studio and one bedroom apartments. Many of those studio and one bedroom apartments are now occupied by the college and post college crowd and a goodly, yet not Godly, number have been converted to evil condominiums.

What I see happening and foresee continuing in Uptown and points north is the slow and steady "condoization" of much of the low density housing stock. The "hipsters" are largely moving to Wicker Park, Logan Square and Humboldt Park and the north lakefront areas seem to be drawing the late 20's to mid 30's gonna have a kid or gay couple crowd.

One area where I think I somewhat disagree with Joe Zekas is the "implicit" idea that the number of "gentrifying" people willing to live in Chicago is "fixed" and therefore all neighborhoods are viciously competing with one another for those people. I think the number is obviously "finite", but not "fixed". He sees it as more of a "zero sum game" than I do. Again, it is a question of "degree" of disagreement than overall disagreement.

I think that it is entirely possible for Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, Bucktown, Wicker Park, Logan Square, Bronzeville, Humboldt Park, the south loop, west loop and more areas to continue to "gentrify" while appealing to slightly different groups of people. Do the neighborhoods compete? Yes. Is that competition the main factor? I don't think so.

The main factor is job creation and the overall desirability of the city. If the younger educated class wants to live in the city large companies will locate here so they can hire them

Check back again and I will bring light to the darkness and dazzle all with my brilliance, modesty and wit.

Carter,

As someone who moved to Wilmette when his kids were approaching schol age, I think I do have some perspective on what drives families out of the city.

I lived and worked in Lincoln Park / DePaul for nearly 14 years - 1974 - 1987. Do those years overlap yours? During those years I was on the street hours a day at my developments or in my office - either across from Oz Park or at Armitage and Kenmore. Spent many an evening sitting on my front stoop in the 2000 block of Seminary. Many, many, many hours walking the streets looking at real estate deals.

There was zero Cabrini - Green presence beyond the narrow corridor I mentioned. Zero. I rehabbed and sold a dozen buildings between 1900 North and 2400 North during those years, and talked to literally thousands of buyers and renters during that period. I never heard a single one express a single word of concern about Cabrini.

Those Cabrini kids were sadly, stuntingly ghetto-bound with very little mobility. Ever see one at Oak Street Beach? At the Zoo except on a class field trip? In Oz Park, except perhaps for a day camp?

Yeah there's money in places like Cabrini, but not much trickles down to the kids, even the ones selling drugs. Read Freakonomics.

My wife's uncle taught at St. Michael's in the 1960's-70's as a Marianist Brother, and that portion of Old Town was total urban hell at the time. He tells stories about gunfire regularly hitting the school there. The problems to the south of Lincoln Park weren't limited to Cabrini Green by any means!

Uptown and Edgewater are definitely having a problem with high-rise low-income housing broken up into small units. The only thing that will EVENTUALLY start to limit this type of housing stock is that these types of buildings are VERY expensive to maintain in the long run. You can see what high-rise condos and co-ops charge for monthly assessments, and all of the Low Income Housing Tax Credits and HUD subsidies can't keep up. The buildings will eventually deteriorate, become a public hazard, and be raised, though it will take decades. In fact, that Gill Park Cooperative in Lakeview looks like it may be ending it's useful life without a multi-million dollar re-hab soon. That building is a firetrap nightmare with a crumbling facade. Most condo buildings can't even keep up with those types of repairs without socking their owners with huge special assessments.

"Ever see one at Oak Street Beach? At the Zoo except on a class field trip? In Oz Park, except perhaps for a day camp?"

Yes, all the time, in fact.

Were you selling real estate at the beach? Or in Oz Park? How can anyone argue that Cabrini Green didn't stunt development in the nearby area, did April Fool's Day get pushed back this year?

I'm 36. I'd say I was quite conscious of Cabrini Green at least by 5th grade (80? 81?) and I was in the immediate area regularly if not daily from the mid-70s through 89, although good amounts of summer time was spent in the general vicinity from 89 - 93 as well, in addition to teaching at LPHS in 94-95.

I was interacting with broad swaths of kids/teens from all sorts of levels of society, Cabrini was no exception.

"I think I do have some perspective on what drives families out of the city."

I agree but please note that I'm not telling you your perspective is wrong or that was a bad thing to do, simply that it is inadequate and incomplete to be making the kind of blanket statement you're making.

I was there in constant contact with the kids whose families stayed, and of course, over the years many of those families eventually split town as well. Conditions at LPHS were no small factor, and Cabrini kids were a large part of the school's population in the 80s, just as they were in 94-95 when I was a teacher there. LPHS had/has fantastic magnet programs, but it also had/has a horrible gang presence and culture in the school, and it wasn't from the skateboarder kids with white collar parents.

Sitting on your stoop and developing and selling real estate throughout the area is certainly hands-on experience I respect in terms of your geographic knowledge of the area, but I also have a feeling that this biased your outlook accordingly.

I recall the first time I rented an apartment right around the corner from Lathrop Homes in 97, and the owner said "don't worry about those projects, they're coming down really soon." It's not hard to imagine that someone making a living on developing real estate near Cabrini Green would be minimizing it's negatives and its proximity, nor would I blame someone for that, as I don't particularly care for fearmonging types who associate black people with crime. Nevertheless, Cabrini wasn't just a black neighborhood, it was a failed social experiment, and the street crime was quite noticeable.

My experience is not biased by any need to survive financially, but rather one based on friendships and avoiding gang conflicts on the streets, roaming muggers, teens looking to cause trouble, etc. They were still doing this in 95, I heard kids complain about being profiled in classes, but of course when a rash of muggings and robberies are happening between 3 and 5 pm very near a high school, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.

I also had a half dozen kids within a few years of my age in my grade school who lived in Cabrini, and during my brief stint at LPHS had classrooms with roster after roster of addresses on Larrabee. Hours and hours a day of direct exposure, so I think I know a few things you do not. I knew parents who pulled their kids out of my grade school after a few particularly troubling incidents with said kids, although I'm happy to say such incidents were very few and far between.

And while what I know is still pretty minimal, I’d hasten to add that the vast majority of kids I knew who lived in Cabrini were nice, decent kids (if perhaps not making educational standards), when you have that many low-income people compressed, it doesn’t take more than a small percentage to really create a bad climate.

It causes my physical pain, but I agree with Carter on this one.

The Joe Zekas experience of Lincoln Park is going to be very different than the experience of some kid growing up there or nearby. Adults don't see all the crap kids do and the problem kids and teens from Cabrini are less likely to screw with an adult that with someone near their age.

We all experience things from slightly different perspectives. As an oversized male I may not perceive a threat from someone that a five foot female would.

As an adult living in Uptown I've never experienced any threat of violence. Now one of my former neighbors who was stereotypically gay was chased from the Wilson EL stop home by a group of kids. If they had tried that with me there would have been blood on the sidewalk. Possibly mine and certainly some of theirs.

I do tend to think that sometimes Joe Zekas does overstate the glory of the Lincoln Park of his distant past. It's not 1977 and Lincoln Avenue has changed. Both for the good and bad.

Now if you excuse me I need to have a drink. The experience of agreeing with Carter has caused a strong sense of ennui that can only be quenched with some alcohol and a long bike ride.

Carter, IrishPirate …

Sigh!

A stretch along North Avenue and the 1800 and 1900 blocks of Orchard, Howe and Burling were the only areas that were blighted to any extent by Cabrini at any time from the mid-70s on.

Real estate developers don't live in a bubble. They have to respond to what their tenants and buyers are saying and experiencing, and what their prospects' perceptions are. They have workers on site and hear from them what's happening on a daily basis, and they spend a fair amount of time at their sites.

Developers go to way too many community meetings. They get to know the local cops and spend time with them. They go to Chamber of Commerce meetings and hear from all the local businesses what's happening on the street from their perspective. If they're lucky, as I was, they belonged to the Lincoln Park Builders Association and had dinner every other Thursday with the guys who made Lincoln Park happen. And they spent as much time as possible talking to other developers and to brokers they could trust for honest feedback - and, yes, there are those folks.

With all due respect to your experiences as kids, you aren't going to find anyone who was an adult, especially anyone who actually did the development you say was delayed by Cabrini, who would share your perception that Cabrini slowed Lincoln Park development except in the small stretches I've noted.

To be blunt, one of the major reasons - if not the major reason - that Cabrini kids didn't venture into most of Lincoln Park (except for the pedestrian corridors where they had reason to be) was Chicago's then racist-to-the-bone police force. Ever talk / listen to those cops back in the 70s and 80s? I did, often. Very scary and very determined folks. Any kid who confronted them once would never do it again. Just walking down Halsted or Larrabee - one block off the path - was enough to get your head cracked by those who serve and protect if you were a Cabrini kid.

Lathrop, Carter, is a different story entirely. Its effects on its immediate area were more severe and lingered longer.

Like Hillary learned can't we just all get our sniper stories correct?

There seem to be two ideas being expressed which are not necessarily contradictory.

One: Cabrini had a minimal effect on the gentrification of Lincoln Park. I'd agree.

Two: The presence of some of the people who lived in Cabrini on Lincoln Park was a negative for the neighborhood. However, the forces and force behind gentrification were so overwhelming that the effect was negligible.

Just because a few people move because of a few bad incidents doesn't mean their moving had a major effect on the overall direction of the neighborhood. I have little doubt that Carter is right about his experiences during that time frame or that Joe Zekas is correct that any such incidents had no significant impact.

So that being said in the immortal words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along"?

IrishPirate,

We can't all just get along when Carter persists in saying this: "How can anyone argue that Cabrini Green didn't stunt development in the nearby area, did April Fool's Day get pushed back this year?"

Are you going to let him off the hook on that? I'm not. He's trying to tell me that my experience as a developer biased my perception of the impact of Cabrini Green - when there wasn't any impact on virtually any of Lincoln Park at least from the mid-70s on. Hell, not even the most conservative of lenders raised an issue. There was no issue. What conceivable reason could I have to distort the reality 20 years after the fact?

I agree with Carter more often than not - far more often than not. But he's playing way too far above his pay grade on this question. He's given us no relevant facts to support his thesis - and his experience as a 5th grader through teenager has less than zero relevance to the considerations that moved real estate developers and home buyers during those years.

I recommend we "all just get along" with Carter on this one the way the LAPD got along with Rodney King.

One further thought for Carter to chew on. What "stunted development" on the parcels of land in Lincoln Park nearest Cabrini Green was the fact that they were urban renewal parcels owned by the city. No one was making a move on those areas until the city clarified what was going to happen with those parcels. Is Carter even aware of that history and of how much of Lincoln Park was declared a "slum and blighted area" and cleared through urban renewal programs, and of the temeporary blighting effect of those programs?

Carter was wrong on the April Fool's comment at least in terms of the real impact of Cabrini on overall change. I'm sure it had an effect, but it "twernt" much of one. His suggestion that your "financial" imperative colored your view of the changes in Lincoln Park was also off base. It was the kind of crack I would expect from one of the "lesser" posters here.

I don't think his experience as a "yout" has "zero" relevance on what happened with home buyers or gentrification. Little relevance yes. Zero, no. I can guarantee if some parent had their kid mugged by a Cabrini mini thug it may have caused them to move. Just like having narcissistic yuppsters contributed to you moving. Now what impact did you moving have on Lincoln Park? Too small to quantify given the larger trends.

You both are looking at Lincoln Park from different perspectives. I think in terms of the actual impact of Cabrini on "gentrification" you are correct. He's focusing on the "micro" issues of a few people who may have moved and you are focusing on the "macro" issue of it not having any real impact overall.

Now I remember looking at vacant lots just south of North Avenue and around 300-600 west in 1991. They were selling for about $100,000 for a standard sized lot. Unfortunately, I didn't have the sense to buy any as I overestimated the long term impact of Cabrini. I haven't looked for years, but I'm guessing that a lot there would now cost around 1 MILLION yankee dollars.

I also missed buying lots in the greater Bronzeville area in the late 90's with one of my brothers. He bought. He made out like a Daley nephew at a TIF convention.

The moral of those anecdotes: don't call your near high school dropout brother "Fredo" because one day he may be far wealthier than you in terms of money and family life. Such is life in an amusing world.

IrishPirate,

In late 1986 I laboriously researched the tax status of every parcel in the area bounded by North Ave, Clybourn Ave, Sedgwick and Division.

I identified about 150 parcels where the taxes hadn't sold at auction and were available for purchase over the counter. The numbers were too small on each parcel to interest the big tax speculators. Total cost of buying the taxes on those parcels would have been about $25k. I went down to the county with my printouts to buy the taxes only to find that someone had been there the day before and bought every last one of them!

At about the same time I was negotiating to buy a triple lot on the northeast corner of Blackhawk and Mohawk, planning to build a home for myself on it. The seller stood firm at $30k, which was way over the $20k I was willing to pay for it. Got lots of those sad stories. And guess what - I wasn't concerned about the proximity to Cabrini Green. Sedgwick Gardens - the old Marshall Field Apartments - was a much more significant blighting force in that area than Cabrini.

At that time the two biggest landowners in the area - and each controlled many parcels - were 1) White Way Sign, and 2) Alison Davis of what was then Davis Miner and Barnhill - Barack's old law firm.

Joe,

that story is painful. I need a drink. I thought me selling a veritable boatload of stock the day before it jumped 40+ percent was painful. That was back just prior to the stock market crash.

Oh well.

"No one was making a move on those areas until the city clarified what was going to happen with those parcels"

That's exactly my point, thank you. Once the Ogden Avenue bridge came down, once it was apparent that it was simply a matter of time before Cabrini was going to the way of the dodo, you saw all of that development explode around North & Clybourn.

Joe, you're backtracking - you started off this silly argument (as it were) by claiming I was imagining the presence of street punks from Cabrini outside of the areas you originally mentioned. You conveniently sidestepped much of what I pointed out, which is indeed fact, and believe me, a little kid comes home having had some bad experience in the park with gangbangers and it can have a quite profound effect on the parents long term plans. Of course, one family leaves, another will usually move right in, I'm saying Lincoln Park in the 80s was a ghetto by any stretch.

Again, the determination of builders to build in an area that they knew had long term potential doesn't in any way disprove hat the gargantuan looming towers of Cabrini had a major impact on the area.

And you know as well I do that community meetings, for better and for worse, hardly tell the whole tale of a neighborhood nor are they representative of it.

You seem to only respect data in your field as "proof," but the fact is that there is a reason why eyewitness testimony is still usually the determining factor in a trial. Believe me, this isn't some bizarro tale I've concocted, were they on your site there would be dozens and dozens of my fellow friends who would vouch for all of this.

Cabrini kids may have been poor, but they weren't stupid - why wouldn't they be hanging out in Oz Park en masse? They certainly were swarming the beaches from North all the way to Fullerton and Oak Street, I recall those silly ghetto blasters being lugged around on wagons they were so large (one can only imagine the cost of the batteries).

There were no cops out there bashing skulls during the day, although I have no doubt many might have jumped at the chance.

we seem to all agree more than we disagree, though I will say I would be interested in learning more of the urban renewal specifics if you might have a link.

"Sedgwick Gardens"

ah, fair enough, I'd agree this was also a factor, I do tend to lump these in with Cabrini but it's true they are distinct.

I think we're getting a bit fuzzy with our "Lincoln Park" border here… I know there's always the whole neighborhood vs. "community area" thing, Sedgewick Gardens is entirerly south of North Avenue. The only area I would imagine being impacted by that in the Lincoln Park community area would be the little corner of the neighborhood from Armitage to North Avenue (but of course, I wasn't around)… Can anyone comment on this? This is now teardown central in Lincoln Park. What was this area like in the 70s and 80s? I know Joe was buying real estate just north of there, right?

No fuzziness here. I simply can't fathom how one can look at the building boom of the 90s and in any way claim the 70s and 80s were remotely equivalent.

Carter,

It is so pointless to continue this because you are so clueless about what drove and what delayed development in Lincoln Park, and how the community functioned, and how developers make decisions about where to build. Your history - e.g. the Ogden Ave bridge point - is either wrong or irrelevant. All the townhomes along North Ave were built long before the bridge was taken down or anyone involved even dreamed of Cabrini going down.

I'll show you around the neighborhood some day and explain it all to you if you want. You might be developing some cred with 15-year olds, but you're not scoring any points with anyone who was an adult in that place at that time.

And stop - just stop - trying to tell me that the kids were a presence in Oz Park beyond the small corner of it where the high school is. I officed at 636 Webster for half a dozen years, looking out at that park every day, sitting in it, holding meetings in it, sitting on the front porch of oone of my neighbors looking out on the park and drinking beer with him, taking my kids to it, etc. etc. No Cabrini kids to be seen. Period.

Carter,

you're clearly wrong on your version of development in Lincoln Park from the 70's-90's.

Early 70's- Lincoln Park loaded with slums, white biker gangs,Puerto Rican bangers and more. Not anything like the Lincoln Park of today.

By the mid 80's virtually all of the slums and gangs were gone with the main exception of the blocks just east of Ashland. Even there it wasn't that bad because of generally lower density and long time owners with indecipherable Chicago accents who never moved. A tiny number of those long time owners still exist around the 2400 block of Greenview. Get a translator and try to speak to them sometime.

The main changes in Lincoln Park occurred in the 70's and 80's. What has happened since is partially just tearing down some of the frame buildings that remained or even decent to great brick buildings to build mini mansions. There is also a tremendous amount of "re-renovation" where properties that were renovated in the 70's are going through a second round of renovation.

During one of their pledge drives WTTW had a show on the Puerto Ricans in Chicago. Apparently I didn't realize it, but Puerto Ricans are indigenous in Chicago and were forced out of "their hood" by evil gentrifiers and the police. By "their hood" they largely meant the area around Armitage and Halsted. They had interviews with old "gangbangers"…….ooops I mean "peoples revolutionaries" bemoaning what happened.

Do a google search and you could probably find some video and stories. I remember seeing some before.

What happened in the 90's in Lincoln Park pales in comparison to what largely happened in the 70's and early 80's. The truly dramatic changes all occurred well before the reign of our current "mare" started in 1989. As an aside may "his elective majesty" reign over us for a hundred years or until his son or nephews are mature enough to lead us into the bright and glorious future.

I don't know of another area in Chicago the size of Lincoln Park that saw such dramatic gentrification over such a short period of time. From 1975 until 1985 the entire image of the neighborhood was transformed and the demographics in terms of income also changed dramatically. In 1975 lotsa folks would have been scared to live in Lincoln Park or even walk there. By the mid 80's it was the place to be at least in the minds of bajillions of people.

Something similar has occurred in many other hoods, but the speed and scope in Lincoln Park was much swifter. I don't recall enough about the "slum clearance" Joe Zekas spoke of to say exactly how it impacted the development, but I can say that the change was dramatic.

Carter,

IrishPirate has nailed the timetable here - Lincoln Park, except for infill and do-overs and western fringes, was over by the late 80s.

"And stop - just stop - trying to tell me that the kids were a presence in Oz Park beyond the small corner of it where the high school is."

I don't need to tell you anything, you obviously have closed your mind, very much like you did until recently that there was a housing slump.

Unfortunately I cannot force you to travel back in time so that you could try and score a basketball hoop at Webster on the western edge of the park, but I assure you there was a sizeable, and regular project kid presence.

I walked or biked from Diversey and Lincoln to Armitage Halsted, using every conceivable route and street combo, every school day from 4th grade through 8th grade, call it 80 - 85. I took the bus or drove north on Halsted from Diversey to Roosevelt from 85 - 89.

Selling buildings doesn't actually have anything to do with what I'm talking about, which is how people (cough) who lived and grew up in the area both eprceived and experienced the presence of all the CHA housing and the residents. That, I am quite familiar with.

Clearly Joe can only "win" his constantly evolving self-described argument by insisting I'm a liar, but quite frankly, I'm too proud to stoop to tactics like that.

"All the townhomes along North Ave were built long before the bridge was taken down or anyone involved even dreamed of Cabrini going down."

I brought up the bridge as it was apparent to anyone with a brain that once they stopped keeping it up it meant that the reason for it's existence - getting white people safely past Cabrini - was going to be removed.

The main problem with Joe's arguments here is that he simply is in no position to be claiming he knows what was widely discussed in terms of Cabrini's future, or its impact. You're a developer Joe, not a historian or social scientist, regardless of your contempt for those at lower paygrades.

As I said, people were being told as long as I can remember it was "on the way down." That was of course a lie, perhaps this is the nerve I'm striking here.

irishpirate, I am of course aware of the Puerto Rican presence/gentrification controversy. it doesn't particularly have anything to do with what I'm talking about, that's all, as I would certainly never make the demented argument that they were holding back development.

Carter,

take a deep breath.

I suspect you are right about the presence of kids from Cabrini in Oz Park. Again I don't think it or Cabrini itself had much impact on the overall gentrification of Lincoln Park. Now did the presence of some of those kids negatively effect the quality of life for people living around there. I'm sure it did. It only takes a few thugs to make things difficult for everyone.

In my then lily white neighborhood we had an extended family of Irish American thugs who made life miserable for everyone. Threats, thefts, burglaries etc. Until a group of off duty cops and firemen with private tow trucks towed all their cars and deposited them in a forest preserve lake. They loved their tricked out cars. They moved soon after and if what my brother told me was true it was like a scene out of an old western. Something to the effect of "git outta town before sundown or you'll be lucky if you just end up in jail charged with every crime in a two mile radius." The funny thing is they were probably guilty of most of those crimes.

Except for disagreeing on the presence of kids from Cabrini hanging out in Lincoln Park you are both making separate arguments.

You're not going to agree because you both experienced things differently and your focusing on somewhat different issues. How Cabrini impacted gentrification and how it impacted the day to day lives of people living in Lincoln Park.

As for your crack that Joe Zekas ain't a historian or a social scientist that doesn't mean a whole lot. I ain't an English teacher, yet I still speakz good Enlish.

Some of the "dumbest" people I have met in my life have PHD's and call themselves academics. Along with some of the brightest. Some of the brightest and most decent people I have met are "blue collar" and Studs Terkel has focused on them in some of his books.

You are making a Terkel "micro" argument while simultaneously suggesting the Joe Zekas "macro" argument has no basis.

He knows a good part of the story of the gentrification in Lincoln Park because he lived and experienced it. Just like you understand the smaller day to day impact Cabrini had.

This argument is going to go no where. Your both going to get increasingly pissed off and agitated.

I recommend alcohol.

Carter, I mostly agree with you, except…. The Ogden bridge was in existence long before Cabrini was built - unless you mean that it's existence evolved into that function.

Carter,

I've never suggested you're a liar - just a know-nothing when it comes to Cabrini and its impact on development, which is where you started this loopy thread.

I didn't have to have any insight into what the plans were for Cabrini. Read what I said above: neither I nor any other developer cared about the subject.

Here's one of your wildest (among many) fabrications: "I brought up the bridge as it was apparent to anyone with a brain that once they stopped keeping it up it meant that the reason for it's existence - getting white people safely past Cabrini - was going to be removed."

Far from being what you contend, the intersection of Ogden and Clybourn was the most dangerous place to be in the area. It was smash-and-grab central - a place to be avoided, not a way to get anyone safely past Cabrini. I drove my kids down Ogden several times a week to Near North Montessori, when it was on Chicago and Ogden. If I'd been concerned about getting safelly past Cabrini that's exactly the last route I would have taken.

I'm not even going to talk about the Puerto Rican gangs when I was developing 1900 Halsted or their ownership of the El stop at Armitage and Halsted. The fact that those gangs also kept the Cabrini kids from being a factor in the area wouldn't matter to you.

What I keep hearing you say is that some of the longer-term locals were hyper-hyper-aware of the presence of black people and fearful of their impact in ways that distorted the reality of their near total absence. Get a grip on it.

Oh please let this thread go away like the former Ogden bridge. Let it die, like good questions at a Presidential debate seemingly have.

Don't let it survive like an urban cougar would if "animal lovers" controlled the world. Don't let it hang in there like Hillary Clinton when it is clear that no good can come of it.

Let it be gone. Like my misspent "yout".

Many another pirate might have quoted Oliver Cromwell's admonition to the Long Parliament:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you."

I'll sign off on this thread.

Cromwell also said after he invaded Ireland "To Hell or Connaught." Connaught being the westernmost, rockiest and most dismal part of a rocky and relatively dismal island. By which he meant to the Catholics "die or flee".

So I try to avoid quoting Cromwell and remember that a few years after his death his corpse was dug up, hung and beheaded. Not that he likely noticed.

What you hear and what I say are apparently two different things. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well, so this will be my last post (although I admit I do somewhat enjoy annoying irishpirate, just a bit of schaudenfreude I suppose).

I do reiterate, I don't doubt your personal experience selling in the area, Joe. I would suggest you simply consider there are many, many more perspectives and viewpoints that are also quite valid.

A few quick links I found in 10 seconds of google searching, I'm quite certain that given the time and desire I'd have no problem taking both of you to the mat on this one.

http://www.forgottenchicago.com/ogden4.php
Ogden was removed north of North avenue in 1967. Severing the connection between Lake Shore Drive and the interstate system, the massive viaduct was left to carry sparse traffic through an area few wanted to traverse. In 1958, fifteen public housing buildings of seven, ten, and nineteen stories were constructed at Division and Sedgwick streets. Another eight buildings were added to the complex, fifteen and sixteen stories tall, in 1962. The 1962 addition was situated east of Ogden on the north side of Division, extending east toward previous public housing efforts.

These highrises, known as Cabrini-Green, were comprised largely of poor African-Americans and early on were plagued by crime, drug, and high-vacancy problems. The hopelessness and poverty that came to be associated with this area were a far cry from the ideal that Lincoln Park community leaders were trying to achieve. As writer Greg Beaubien puts it, the removal of Ogden "created a barrier at North Avenue between elite wealth in the Triangle District and crushing poverty around Cabrini-Green." Lincoln Park and Old Town had been successfully isolated by the removal of Ogden Avenue. The Near West side would follow.

for more perspective on my point, which was not that people have some unnatural fear of black folks but simply that anything as notorious as Cabrini Green most certainly had an impact, no matter how difficult it is to translate that into stats in the real estate biz:

http://www.chicagoreporter.com/index.php/c/Cover_Stories/d/Rising_Values

By far, the most dramatic shifts have occurred near Cabrini-Green, where nearly $1 billion in residential property has been sold since 2000. It was no surprise that Cabrini-Green's proximity to the Magnificent Mile and opulent Gold Coast would garner interest as public housing buildings there were torn down—it just had not been clear how much.

Since Jan. 1, 2004, residential property sales within two blocks of Cabrini-Green exceeded the sum for a six-square-mile section of the South Side—nearly $281 million sold near Cabrini-Green compared to a combined $272 million in Fuller Park, New City, and portions of Gage Park, Grand Boulevard and Washington Park.

"It hasn't happened overnight," said developer Dan McLean, whose MCL Companies has developed land near Cabrini-Green. "It's been going on 10 years now, and it would've gone a lot faster if the CHA had torn down the buildings."

http://www.chicagoreporter.com/index.php/c/Sidebars/d/Rapid_Change

"Many of the new residents, such as Woodson-Shelby, echo the same sentiment: They wouldn’t have moved to these areas until they knew the CHA housing would be demolished.

Three census tracts that include land immediately surrounding public housing developments in transition—one tract each near Rockwell Gardens, the Cabrini-Green Homes on the Near North Side and the Ida B. Wells development on the South Side—were among the city’s tracts with the highest increases in home mortgages from 2000 to 2003. The city’s largest increase in home mortgages during that time occurred in an area bordered by Division Street, Larrabee Street, Chicago Avenue and the Chicago River. That census tract, which sits across Division Street from Cabrini-Green, grew from two home mortgages in 2000 to 180 in 2003.

However, the Cabrini-Green area continues to grapple with safety concerns. Many new residents, most of whom are white and middle-class, remain leery of their public housing neighbors, most of whom are black."

And what Joe sees and reports are two different things. Joe was in Pilsen almost two years ago, and he seems to think that he is an accurate judge of such a time and place, as it pertains to the present. Joe doesn't know crap, which is why he sits up in his developer-made, ivory tower and spews hatred upon certain neighborhoods. As we said before Joe, get your BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN PILSEN, not Cullerton and Peoria. It's a very large neighborhood and several developments have filled in since your visit. Go ahead, and take a look, chappy.

UICstudent

Who's spewing hatred?

I was last in Pilsen about 4 weeks ago - that's not "almost two years" on my calendar.

Look at my Pilsen photos on Flickr - were they taken "almost two years ago?"

Pilsen Flickr

As for Carter's comments I am ignoring them as they don't really pertain to the impact of Cabrini on Lincoln Park. Unless we now consider 1300 Clybourn and nearby streets Lincoln Park.