And "No Bro" has some rather unfortunate connotations as well…as in no "bros" allowed?

I wonder who lives in NoBro?

Pas moi, Levois.

Since you don't live there YoJoe that would mean the neighborhood should be changed to "NoYo".

For my next yoke…….

"One sign of a booming real-estate market is sections of old neighborhoods being given new names to emphasize the changes they’re undergoing: think West Roscoe Village, South Andersonville and West Bucktown."

Clever use of the passive voice to mask exactly who (DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS) are giving these new names to emphasize the changes they're undergoing (BUILDING AND SELLING REAL ESTATE).

These neighborhoods are desirable due to infrastructure & location that are 100% independent of what cutesy new moniker is being pitched this week.

Really, this is one of the funnier posts all year, mercy. The only, and I repeat ONLY reason we see these goofball names is so somebody can add a fatter profit margin to a selling price.

Speculators have been the worst thing to happen to the city since cholera, and one would think the housing crash would have learned people to stop encouraging it, but apparently not.

Remember when Lakeview was being plugged as "New Town" by real estate folks back in the 70s and 80s? There were even a few yuppie-oriented business trying to get in on the action such as New Town Interiors and New Town Aquariums.

There are actually legitimate reasons to differentiate between different areas in a neighborhood. 3500 LSD is very different than 3500 Greenview yet they are both in your beloved Lake View.

I do agree though that largely it is done by real estate types trying to promote sales.

Carter, IrishPirate,

The point I was trying to make is that the subdivision is often the work of newcomers to a neighborhood who create an unrepresentative community group and purport to represent their small area and send a message that "we're not like the rest of [insert neighborhood name here]."

Developers and real estate agents don't deserve all - sometimes even much - of the blame.

Joe,

it varies. Sometimes it is the newcomers moving in and sometimes it is Real Estate types. It may more often be the newcomers driving it or not. I guess some academic can write a treatise on it. Perhaps that woman from Depaul I found on some Pilsen anti gentrificatin videos.

I think in Uptown it has largely been real estate types at least initially. Sheridan Park, Clarendon Park are good examples of that. The term "Buena Park" actually was in existence prior to "Uptown" as it was the first part of the community built up. I liked to tell the annoying anti gentrification types that at community meetings. Drove them bonkers. Which is a very short drive. "It's Uptown not Buena Park." "Actually,………I said"

I suspect that often the name changes are both real estate and community driven and that placing responsibility for it would be difficult. "West Bucktown" would be an example. Clearly developer driven initially, but large parts of the pasty newcomer community has jumped on.

Personally, I've never liked Bucktown and can't understand the "cachet", but I guess it beats being called East Humboldt Park from a marketing point of view. All those images of Humboldt Park with those "brave resistance fighters" turning over cars and burning them during the "insurrections" of the 1960's and 1970's might turn off prospective buyers.

A-HA! Originally scheduled for APRIL FIRST! Yeah, you fooled me and everyone else who responded! Joke's on us!!! Happy Monday everybody!!!

Joe-

hilarious - at first I couldn't believe it : )

That said, I think your comment about newcomers breaking away and forming alternate and sometimes adversarial community structures is discouraging. One of the things we'll encourage on MoveSmart.org - and groups like the Neighbors Project (NeighborsProject.org) are encouraging is that when folks move into a community they lend their support, resources, and time to existing community structures rather than form their own. Now, if those pre-existing structures are exclusionary, it's a whole different story…

Justin, a big problem in the South Loop is that some of these 'pre-existing structures' are developer appointed, or have members with undisclosed conflict of interest. The story in last weekends Sun-Times in regard to the Alderman and his developer representing wife should give you plenty of idea of how too widely conflict of interest is accepted as the acceptable behavior, legal or not.

You should be encouraging more people to get involved in smaller charcater segments that can properly address and resource the issues facing neighborhoods.

Let me, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, paraphrase Jeff's advice –

If an existing organization has people in it who might disagree with you, start your own organization. After all, the minute you move in you have far more at stake than a developer who might have been working to improve your neighborhood for the last 15 or 20 years, or some old-timer who doesn't look like you or think like you.

Fair paraphrase, Jeff?

Sure Joe, let me paraphrase your constant posts to all readers who do not have your incredible knowledge; 'There is never any scrupulous behavior and corruption going on behind the scenes, and we should leave all urban planning to the developers and their paid lackies who have the communities best interest in hand, because they all have integrity. And to your readers who 12 months ago who were pestering Joe about rediculous assertions that the economy & real estate market where in incredible troublesm what do they know…'

Fair paraphrase, Joe? Great call on the market there.

Not a fair paraphrase Jeff - not even close.

If you'll recall, I studiously avoided calling the market and concentrated on reporting the facts as we saw them.

And, as you very well know, I've never claimed there are no corrupt developers. It's easy to find many instances to the contrary here and in our videos. The existence of developers or developer-influenced representatives in a community organization is not a good reason to avoid participating in an existing organization.

What was the line in Capone, when Connery's character talked of fighting corruption, selecting rookie cops…"sometimes you got to pick them off the tree before they fall off and they get ripe"…

Jeff, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I do take issue with developers who pack meetings, but there usually is some collusion with alderpeople in those cases, in my experience. But that works both ways as well - I've seen activist groups busing in people from outside the neighborhood to support/fight various projects as well. Some developers live in a community, some neighbors support various developments/developers, and that's all fine IMO.

But for a community group to have any credibility, it needs to consist of people in the community, and it needs to be open to anyone living in the area.

Barring issues of exclusionary practices (or group "leaders" with serious conflicts of interest), inventing new community groups to avoid working with existing ones who don't share your views is pathetic, and ultimately counterproductive as it just leads to a fragmented community.

Carter, where is the comment where I suggest exclusionary practice? I agree 110% in regard to all community members that live should be included. However, I don't agree with the practice of others who say, 'come to us if you want to be involved', and then publically advocate not following approved urban and community plans that were just vetted and approved by DPD and the community that they are supposed to represent.

Organizations need to go out of there way get others, including impacted residents involved. Any review and voting should include those residents actually impacted, not some guy who lives in the West Loop or University Village, telling people in parts of the South Loop what they need to do.

Jeff,

You should build a wall around the South Loop and not even let those people enter. Some of those deluded fools even think that the city belongs to all of its citizens and that braoder interess may be at stake than the narrow ones advocated by local residents.

Now you are being obtuse. Of course it does, but when it comes to zoning, impact, etc. if a person wanted to help faciliate a vision for Rogers Park, it would help if they at least lived there and had some stake in the game.

And besides, in this regime, when did it matter that "those deluded fools even think that the city belongs to all of its citizens and that braoder interess may be at sake than the narrow ones advocated by local residents." I believe the Children's Museum debacle once again makes your silly sarcastic point moot.