Comments ( 65 )

• “doesn’t seem to seriously consider the $300K or greater windfall his interviewee might reap as her neighborhood is stolen”

  Everybody is not a home owner. There are people who have been living there for years without owning a home. But they won’t be able to afford the high rents that will be coming.

  Even for the home owners forced to sell their homes, their lifestyles are not going to drastically improve because of selling their home. Remember Ms. Coleman’s mother who is a senior citizen on a fixed income who probably haven’t had a mortgage in years. She is going to have to use the money from her house sale to buy another house. It’s not like she is going to get $300K and live the lavish life.

  A lot people want to stay in Chicago and a single-family home in a good neighborhood is cheap. So making a lateral move into a similar neighborhood further away from where they want to be isn’t probably isn’t that great of a deal for some people. Everybody doesn’t look at their house as a real estate investment but actually a home. It may be a sob story to you but to someone else its their life.

• Well, somewhere there are Lisa Colemans who view this as a college fund for their kids, and plan for it and make it happen and transform the prospects for their kids.

  There are other Lisa Colemans who start a business and move on and prosper, and yet others who move to rural communities in the south and live what they consider a better life.

  I’d like to hear from those Lisa Colemans for a change. They’re out there.

  I’m tired of hearing only from the people who view themselves as victims.

• Agree with Joe Zekas 550% on this one – media types constantly and falsely assume think that the public at large are as interested in ‘victimiztion stories’ as they are – looking for some powerful person or evil corporation or ruthless capitalism itself that has ‘victimized somebody’ Almost a society that celebrates victimhood……

• I think what often gets lost in the gentrification debate is that everyone deserves the choice to live in a decent urban environment. It shouldn’t be reserved just for the wealthy or just for the poor. Where should the middle class live if they shouldn’t live in the city? Should we force them to stay out in the suburbs and commute to work every day in their SUVs? And are they suggesting if middle class whites move to the city, they should be segregated? Neither of these are fair either, especially for the kids who had to suffer through that lifestyle growing up, now being criticized for desiring to live in healthy urban neighborhoods as adults. But yes, it’s messed up that people are pushed out of their neighborhoods just because of property taxes, and that our zoning codes limit the housing types, reducing options for people on lower incomes who would need smaller homes in expensive neighborhoods, and that we don’t have a decent subsidy system for one of the most basic human needs.

  On an unrelated note: My favorite line is “Hip restaurants and shops, the kind that thrive in Hyde Park…” This reporter obviously visited a different Hyde Park than the one I have family in.

• I would have less sympathy for people who get priced out if it was them receiving the windfall when the neighborhood is flipped. Unfortunately, everybody and their black lab knows that’s not the case. Aside from the fact that it’s the real estate business, not neighborhood residents, capitalizing on the increase in home values, many (in a lot of neighborhoods, most) residents rent and therefore receive zero. I think it says a lot about the folks who are involved in development that they apparently can’t understand that not everybody is a homeowner. I guess that’s all you can expect from a business where “affordable” housing means income under $75,000 a year. Between reporters and you guys, I think I know exactly who I’d rather trust.

• Abner,

  Here’s one person who doesn’t know what you take to be certain – because you’re simply making it up and have little or no factual basis for what you’re saying.

  Many residents own in many neighborhoods, and benefit greatly from neighborhood change. I’ve seen it happen repeatedly, and so has anyone who lives in one of these neighborhoods and knows some of the longer-term residents.

  Almost everyone involved in development understands a lot more than you’re giving them credit for.

  Let me rephrase your conclusion, because I think it’s a fair rephrasing: “I’d rather trust someone who shares my biases than someone who confronts me with facts or contrary opoinions.”

  Trust away, Abner.

  Meanwhile, the developers go about building things, creating jobs, improving neighborhoods, raising values while some see only the real or imagined downside.

• Joe:

  If you’re the guardian of facts, then why don’t you give us some? Tell us about home ownership rates among Chicago’s lower income neighborhoods? How about among Chicago’s African American or Hispanic community?

• I got a story for you.

  Older black couple. Bought a center entrance graystone six flat in Uptown in the late 80’s. Paid something like $200,000. Maybe less. I don’t recall exactly.

  Over the years they lived in and maintained the building. I don’t think they did much beyond necessary repairs over the years. They maintained it nicely, cut the grass, shoveled the snow and dealt with tenants.

  About two years ago they sold the place to a condo converter who gutted it. The sale price was just over $1 million yankee dollars. I looked it up.

  I didn’t really know these folks. I just lived down the street and saw the husband working around the place and once in awhile we would talk. Before they moved they had a yard sale and I talked to him. He was thrilled with “gentrification”. I don’t recall if we used the term but he was very happy to sell the place and move.

  If you walk thru parts of Lakeview you will see signs on some doors with hispanic names “The Juarez’s Welcome You” being an example.

  Chances are that they have been there since the 70’s or 80’s and will be quite happy when they sell and move. Maybe they won’t move. Maybe they will just use their increased property value to get a loan to renovate or fund a grandkids education. In any case those folks are likely happy with gentrification.

  People don’t have a “right” to live anywhere they choose. Joe Zekas is older than me and I am older than dirt. Should I have to subsidize him so that he can move back to Lincoln Park and hit on young woman on Lincoln Avenue? I think not!

  Of course as I get further into my decrepitude I may want to move and hit on young women. Saddles up folks “subsidies” are starting to look good.

• up,

  I think I’ve pointed to this resource several times before.

  Metro Chicago Information Center has US Census data online, by census tract.

  It’s easy enough for anyone who’s familiar with the neighborhoods to zero in and find a wealth of information, including homeownership rates and income levels. The data online is for 1990 – 2000 – 2005 – 2010.

  You can also go to scholar.google.com and find plenty of academic studies on the real effects of gentrification, which are quite mixed.

  Irishpirate and I have the benefit of having been around long enough to have known people who’ve benefited. My block in DePaul was full of them. Just a block away, across Armitage Ave, was Maud St. It had many African-American homeowners who worked in what was then Chicago Boiler (now all townhomes). I talked to many folks there who were playing the real estate market, just waiting for the optimum time to sell out and move on and up. Similar story over at Wisconsin and Halsted where I converted two six-flats and a 3-flat to condos, and in other neighborhoods I worked.

  On the block fronting Armitage between Seminary and Kenmore I converted a 50-unit rental building to 36 condos, evicting and relocating an almost completely Hispanic tenant base. Over half of them became homeowners due, to some extent, to the savings they’d been able to make while enjoying well-below market rents in the building I bought. I had adopted a formal program to provide hand-holding and relocation assistance, so I was aware of what was happening to my tenants when they moved on.

  I think I have an anecdote to top irishpirate’s. Frank Thebes was an old German immigrant who was the janitor on a number of my buildings. His wife Ann worked alongside him, without pay, for the dignity of work and Frank’s companionship. They had 3 boys and lived very simply in a small apartment that they had rent-free from another janitorial gig in DePaul. Over a period of many years they acquired half a dozen six-flats. They gave one to each of their boys, free and clear, as wedding gifts. Gentrification was very good to them, and they played it like masters. Anyone looking at them from the outside would probably have seen them as victims of gentrification because of how simply they lived and how poor they always appeared to be. They were rich people in many, many ways.

  When you spend enough time immersing yourself in facts, as I often do, and have been around as long as I have, it becomes extremely tedious to deal with the know-nothings of the world who have little or no real-world experience and will never, ever, ever take the time to look anything up since they already know everything. I’m obviously not including you in that category, up.

• Irishpirate,

  You shouldn’t have to subsidize me to move to Lincoln Park and hit on young women. If you want to, however, the effort would be welcomed.

  How did you get so deep into my fantasy life?

• Joe,

  you mentioned Lincoln Avenue nightlife once and how it was ruined in the 70’s by NIMBY’s.

  The rest was just informed conjecture based on my being old and male.

• I just looked through the Metro Census projections for north lakefront neighborhoods. They don’t seem accurate to me. They project the white population going down from Lincoln Park to Uptown and the number of blacks and hispanics increasing.

  I don’t see it happening. It may end up that the census is again underestimating the amount of change going on in north side neighborhoods or the city as a whole.

  In Uptown, which I know best since I live here, the number of hispanic folks is dropping drastically. Less so black folks and Asians but I would guess their numbers would drop slightly. The drops were shown clearly between the 1990 and 2000 census and have only accelerated.

  If they are that wrong on the north lakefront I wonder and hope they are wrong on their citywide projection of an overall drop in population.

  They were wrong with their projections for 2000.

  I guess we will have to wait and see. I want a denser more packed city dammit!

• Irishpirate,

  What we see impressionistically on the street may not reflect what’s going on. I looked at Uptown data and see the same numbers / trends you see.

  Are they wrong? I don’t know. We’d have to get deep inside the large number of low-income multi-family buildings in Uptown to get any kind of a handle on it. The Census Bureau samples, so 2005 should be fairly accurate.

• We’ll see. It’s not just Uptown. They seem to be off on other lakefront hoods too. I agree that anecdotal “evidence” is not very useful, but given the track record of the census projections made in the mid-90’s I have some hope, perhaps wrong, that the city population may increase slightly.

  As for the census data they were clearly wrong in their predictions for 2000 in overall city population numbers. I hope they are wrong again. They were wrong in Uptown on racial changes. I don’t recall what the predictions were for Lakeview and Lincoln Park. There is or was a company called “Caritas”? that made similar predictions on population trends. I don’t know if they are still around.

  As for the predictions of increasing minority population in Lincoln Park and Lakeview….Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that those numbers are borderline nutz. Hispanic population in Lakeview increasing by 18%??

  In Uptown the black population is more stable than the hispanic population due to higher percentages of folks living in subsidized housing. So I would be surprised if they projected a drastic drop in black population. But predicting a rise in hispanic population seems way off. Those folks are the ones more impacted by the condo conversions than any other group.

  I could walk up and down streets in Uptown and show buildings that have been converted to condos in the last few years that have resulted in the displacement of probably 1000 hispanic folks. Just on Kenmore near Buena a few buildings have been converted or renovated into higher priced apartments and that has resulted in probably close to 200 people moving.

  They do seem to have the numbers of increasing housing units in Uptown correct. Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean more people because conversions usually result in fewer people living in a building and the new construction may not completely make up for the population loss.

  I guess we will see. I know the census bureau samples constantly. Last year a “sampler” came to my door.

  What I hope to see is that all the new construction in the city helps the population stabilize or increase. It is nice to see areas like Bronzeville and Woodlawn seeing new construction. It is those areas with thousands of vacant lots that offer the best opportunity for increasing population.

• Thanks, Joe–I wasn’t attacking you back there, just wanted to see these ‘facts’ that you mentioned.

  I really hope you weren’t trying to be sarcastic up there, by the way. I think “know nothing” is strong and bold, and such statements are always revealing about their authors. A general rule I tend to follow: a person accusing everybody around him of being a pompous know-it-all doesn’t have to look as far as he thinks he does to find a self-proclaimed Holy Father of Knowledge.

  It’s funny how everybody else lacks the facts, but your own opinion is just as anecdotal as the rest. Do you honestly think that for every 1 family that did well, there isn’t another that got screwed because their rents doubled in 2 years? “Oh, but that’s because they played the market poorly” said our inhouse know-it-all.

  I think poor people may perhaps have more on their minds than predicting the real estate market and buying properties in anticipation. But you probably don’t think you need to understand that–their lives, their problems, their challenges aren’t relevant to your Holy Mind. Bask in the glory of your great knowledge, Joe, go ahead and kill another discussion, as it’s impossible to argue with a person who has no peers.

• i use the general rule of thumb, if i can’t afford to live in a rich neighborhood, say Kennilworth, then i move to an area where i can. the people of washington park that can’t afford to stay can move to an area where they can afford. simple as that. shhhh happens. we don’t need to pinpoint poor people and plan around them simply for the fact of not wanting to displace them. if we took that approach, the city would look like englewood everywhere.

• Right on Ty. I want to live in one of those single family homes on lake shore drive just north of oak st. but i can’t afford it. i now live in a loft in the west loop with no lake views or retail to be had. too friggin bad right?!

• up,

  I grew up dirt poor and haven’t forgotten any of it, or lost sympathy for anyone who’s currently living it. I’m simply saying I’d like to hear more of the voices that experienced poverty as a situation that can change rather than a plot directed at them.

  Didn’t I present a link to facts in addition to the anecdotes?

• In this particular situation gentrification in this area is good thing. For some reason the south side has been neglected commercially for along time. Hopefully the Olympics situation will cause much needed infrastructure improvements and commercial development into the community. This will also cause more jobs to be created within the community. The only thing I don’t like about this new Olympics stadium is that I think it might ruin this beautiful park.

• Come on…Really? Ruin the beautiful park? This stadium is probably going to be designed by a famed architect and be aesthetically beautiful. Unlike the dingy park district pavilions that will also be replaced with more aesthetically pleasing structures. What exactly is being ruined here? The park will still have more open green space than most all other park districts combined even when the stadium is built. I believe the Lisa Colemans and all the naysayers begging to keep their dingy brick pavilions and dirt fields will welcome everything the Olympics will bring to the area. In due time…

• Well, data from the 2000 census shows that fewer than 10% of Washington Park residents own their homes. So it shouldn’t be a surprise if more than 90% of the stories are about people getting screwed by gentrification. The strange thing is that that’s not really what most news stories are about. Once you start counting the frothy real estate pieces (which generally blithely sidestep the issue) and the “brave urban pioneer” pieces (oh how those hardy souls have suffered, but they’ve persevered!), it begins to seem like stories about the ugly underbelly of gentrification are actually under-reported. (Though I’ll grant that reporting on the issue could be more perceptive and nuanced across the board.)

• Sort of a sidenote but still relevant since we’re talking about Washington Park, or at least that’s where the conversation started. One of the best – maybe even THE best – novels about “Old Chicago” is James Farrell’s Studs Lonigan trilogy. It documents the social changes in Chicago from WWI to the early Depression and how they affected life in the onetime Irish stronghold of Washington Park. Interesting angle on “demographic change” ca. 80 years ago.

• Woodlawnite,

  To go technical on you, the number is 1 in 8 residents, not 1 in 10. One in 10 housing units is owner-occupied.

  About 20% of Washington Park’s 4,000-odd housing units are vacant, which is what accounts for the difference.

  Isn’t it fair to assume that the owners have, on average, more of a stake in the community and should receive more media attention?

  You’re arguing for more nuanced reporting, yet using phrases like “screwed by gentrification” and its “ugly underbelly?”

  What would reporters do if they didn’t have poor people to patronize?

• Mr. Zekas,
  Thank you for your response. I agree with you that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to understand something as complicated as the welfare effects of gentrification; if it were sufficient, I could simply cite any number of cases in which I’ve observed its negative effects, and you would be likely to win in the end by virtue of the larger number of anecdotes your years have afforded you.

  As someone who is somewhat familiar with the literature on gentrification (though admittedly not nearly as much as I am with the literature on white flight and abandonment), I am surprised to hear you appeal to it to support your argument that gentrification is good for the large majority of old neighborhood residents.

  Since passions run high on the topic on both sides of the fence, academic work on gentrification has to be scrutinized pretty closely. I haven’t been especially impressed with the literature in support of it. I admit I’m biased toward economists and away from urban sociologists, planners, etc. Unfortunately, although there’s a lot of work on gentrification, there’s been very little progress on deriving theoretical models of the process that would allow researchers to try to discover welfare effects. There are several reasons for this. First, general equilibrium models for something this complex are difficult to write and much, much harder to test. As a result, most researchers have focused on first-stage, partial equilibrium effects. This means that they observe one response that households make to gentrification–for example, whether or not they move away from the neighborhood–without taking a fuller account of households’ responses or accounting for the possibility of incompletely compensating (for utility loss) behavior. This is something like observing that if a highway is built nearby, households buy air conditioners so that they won’t have to open the windows, and then inferring from this fact that their utility loss is equal to the cost of the air conditioner. It just doesn’t catch everything, including incomplete compensation for increased noise and pollution, utility loss from the inability to open the windows, possible utility gain from the air conditioner, etc. So a few studies have found that the rate of outflow from gentrifying neighborhoods is no higher than that in non-gentrifying neighborhoods, and concluding from this that those households are no worse off than before. But this finding is incomplete and therefore not very meaningful.

  Researchers who realize this problem have mostly taken one of two routes. They have either done the academic equivalent of giving up (concluding papers with lots of stuff about how hard the problem is, etc.), or they have used inadequate measures. There’s a well-known paper by Jacob Vigdor that sets up a list of criteria that households in his data set must meet to be labeled confidently as being negatively impacted by gentrification. But his criteria are impossibly high because every one must be met–households must experience housing costs rising faster than inflation, receive no improvements in neighborhood quality or public services, etc. The work isn’t there yet to adjudicate between conflicting effects such as improved services (hey, why is it that wealthy neighborhoods have better garbage pickup, anyway… ah, never mind) and lower real (after housing cost) incomes. And the literature certainly isn’t nearly sophisticated enough to weigh the welfare effects of one group against another (actually this is still a problem in all subfields of economics). This is particularly problematic when there are two well-defined groups, such as movers and non-movers, whose outcomes differ widely and are affected by the decisions of members of the other group. A lot of theory would need to be developed before anybody could responsibly claim to know whether the net benefit to poor households is negative or positive.

  Other studies have unfortunately suffered from pretty basic flaws. One paper by Daniel Sullivan published last month used a survey given to residents of two rapidly gentrifying Portland neighborhoods. Both have been transitioning from black to white. Sullivan finds that most respondents said that their neighborhoods had improved over the last five years and, to a lesser degree, were likely to continue improving over the next five. Whether his respondents had the same interpretation of “improving” that he does is uncertain. The author notes that older black residents and renters were less likely to say the neighborhood was improving, failing to note that the magnitude of these two effects by far swamped everything else in his regression. But the surveys were conducted in 2003-2004–after a great deal of neighborhood turnover had already occurred. This means that the sample was fatally biased, since those who had already left the neighborhood (presumably incurring greater utility loss than non-movers) were not sampled at all! Sullivan mentions this problem but pays little attention to it. This kind of thing is unfortunately common in this literature.

  There are other, more technical problems related to statistical methods used to account for spatially autocorrelated data and other spatial effects; these methods are still in their infancy, and because at this stage it is often necessary to impose an assumed parametric relationship to spatial observations, some studies end up presupposing their conclusions or even making the statistical problems worse. This makes analyzing data at the property level, as opposed to the census tract level, very challenging.

  There are problems with the anti-gentrification literature, too, but what almost all of the work agrees on is this: regardless of who gentrification is good for, it’s certainly much worse for renters, people with very low incomes, the elderly, and minorities than everyone else. This is because these people are less mobile, have less to gain from neighborhood revitalization, and are more dependent on neighborhood amenities and social networks. Unfortunately, gentrifying neighborhoods are constituted largely of people with exactly those characteristics.

  So, no, I’m not terribly convinced by what you refer to as the facts of the situation. Pulling out a website with some tables is not exactly convincing. Nor am I convinced that we should be weighing the effects on homeowners over the effects on renters; in fact, I can’t really think of a single reason why we should. I suppose you can argue that homeowners have a higher stake in the neighborhood, but that would be ignoring the reality of longtime renters.

  In the absence of convincing academic proof one way or the other, I’m forced to rely on a combination of case studies from political science, sociology, and anthropology, and what I observe with my own two eyes. What I have read indicates that gentrification has changed since the 1970s in that it has become more driven by the real estate business and local governments. I have to admit that what I know about the history of the real estate industry, particularly when it is in alignment with local government, doesn’t give me a great deal of confidence in its benevolence or in the notion that underlying market realities are what drive neighborhood change. What I observe is a lot of grassroots political movements to keep communities intact and a lot of hostility against developers, politicians, and the first waves of new entrants into neighborhoods. There’s no amount of cute anecdotes about affable German couples that can make up for that. I suppose you can chalk it up to some sort of vast left-wing conspiracy that silences the majorities clamoring for condos! condos! condos!, but I’m not sure that would be an argument you could win.

• Abner,

  There’s much that we agree on, including the inconclusive state of the scholarly work on the effects of gentrification, and the limited value of cute anecdotes.

  I don’t hear you arguing that there are no positive benefits, and I’m not arguing that there are no negative outcomes – or that the majority of long-time residents in gentrifying neighborhoods don’t experience negative outcomes. They very well may. I don’t know and I read your comment as saying you don’t either.

  My rant had a much simpler point: the near-total media silence on the positive impact of gentrification on some residents.

  We also agree, and I suspect you’ll be surprised by this, that gentrification is more agenda-driven than purely market-driven today than it had been in the past. You seem to assume that’s a bad thing. I don’t know whether it is or isn’t.

  What I think I do know – and it’s based purely on experience – is that societal resources for dealing with the fact of neighborhood change are not being allocated toward producing more positive outcomes. Resource-allocation decisions produce feedback effects that can unintentionally result in more negative outcomes.

  I’d rather see the whole debate over gentrification framed this way: accepting neighborhood change and displacement as a fact, how can we use what resources we have to produce better outcomes for the people who are going to be moving on?

  Until we come up with a better approach, poor peoplel will continue to be nothing more than cannon fodder for anti-gentrification proponents.

• FACTS of GENTRIFICATION

  1. Outside real estate interests benefit

  2. Locals who own benefit

  3. The tax base for the city benefits

  4. Most local renters, don’t benefit financially. However, they may benefit from less crime, more city services and better retail and job options. At least as long as they remain in the neighborhood.

  5. Some people in gentrified neighborhoods are forced out by higher rents. Most of those people would have moved within a 5 year period anyway. People in American cities move frequently and lower income folks even more frequently. The only real exception to that is lower income folks in subsidized housing who tend to stay in one area longer.

  6. In areas that have gentrified it is not so much that individual people have been forced out as much as they haven’t been replaced by others of the same demographic background. That doesn’t mean there are not individuals who have been in areas for decades who have not been forced to move. There clearly are.

  7. If there had been no gentrification in Chicago since the 1960’s this city would largely resemble Detroit in terms of economics and would probably have a population of around 2 million overwhelmingly poor people.

  8. Detroit sucks. Chicago rocks.

  9. The most hopeful sign of rebirth in this city are in the area from I-55 south to Woodlawn. That area(s) is largely depopulated in vast swaths and needs the development. Most of the people driving that development are black middle class folks who want to remain in the city or move back from suburbia.

  10. The tax base of the city benefits from gentrification. All those middle class folks paying property and sales taxes help pay for the schools and other services that EVERYONE needs.

  11. Many gentrification opponents are nothing more than “poverty pimps” who benefit in keeping areas and people poor.

• Well said, Irishpirate!

• It’s not at all clear to me that the tax base benefits overall from the type of gentrification that is now occurring in Chicago because it is so highly subsidized by TIFs. Maybe there will be benefits when the TIFs expire–assuming that they’re not simply renewed, as seems to be common practice–but not until then, except insofar as property value increases in TIF districts exhibit leakage into areas outside the TIF boundary. But even then, those increases have to exceed the amount diverted from the coffers in the TIF district. It’s also by no means clear that the level of TIF subsidies we see today are necessary to promote neighborhood revitalization.

  Lots of gentrification advocates take the tack of using a false dichotomy between gentrification and urban decay. But that’s silly, because it assumes that the poor have nothing to use to benefit themselves but their land. When gentrification advocates use “neighborhood revitalization” as a panacea for urban problems, to the exclusion of things that produce real changes like education and social support services, they are doing something truly harmful. When developers claim, as was claimed above, that they’re the ones creating wealth in neighborhoods, I have to cringe a little. Buying up properties on the cheap when the neighborhood is poor, then waiting and flipping them all with a wink and an assist from local government, is not the way to positively change people’s lives. You want to produce real change, do something to help people become more productive or to increase employment in sectors that they can stably occupy. Promote minority-owned businesses.

  Finally, the argument that people who fight gentrification are “poverty pimps” and neighborhood residents are nothing but their “cannon fodder” and all that trash needs some serious work. The explicit claim there is that poor people have no agency, exist outside the political discourse, and are simply tossed to and fro by bigger forces. It ignores the very public and well-documented political organizations that try to keep neighborhoods stable and affordable and slow development. It’s an appeal to sentiments that can only be claimed to exist, never verified. What it comes down to is that when I’m in neighborhoods on the edge of gentrification, I see a lot more suspicion and hostility than I do welcoming, and a lot more hostility than I see when I’m in non-gentrifying neighborhoods.

• Abner,

  I’ve been around a looooooooong time. I can remember going to “Rainbow Beach” as a kid. That Rainbow Beach being in then White “South Shore” and now black “South Shore”.

  I remember Tony’s Restaurant in Roseland and Nino’s Pizza. I remember my drunken dad getting my head shaved at Veterans Barbershop and cackling in delight as I cried after seeing my ugly bald head.

  If I were to suggest that blacks should not have been allowed to “change” those neighborhoods you would rightfully call me a racist. If you want to suggest that whites or middle income blacks or others should not be allowed to “change” a neighborhood I would rightfully call you a “racist” and probably an idiot.

  Yea you are right there are organizations that have worked to slow development. Thank God for them. I mean let’s look at the Woodlawn Organization. Until very recently they have managed to keep almost all development out of Woodlawn. Woodlawn has thrived over the last 4 decades with evermore vacant lots, liquor stores, and a rapidly declining population.

  But on the positive gangs have thrived and the neighborhood has remained overwhelmingly bleak. Let’s keep those middle income folks out. We wouldn’t want them to “change” that neighborhood. My God, there is a black guy with an MBA who wants to move into Woodlawn……………….”stop him anti-gentrifcation man”.

  Abner you are the mirror image of a Bushie Republican who has drank the kool aid. Change means that some people benefit and some lose. No change means that everyone loses. If I am walking by a building on fire and there are two kids in the window but I can only save one do I say “sorry, how is that going to benefit the second kid? You both have to die”.

  As for the tax base benefitting from gentrifcation…..see Detroit.

  TIF’s are abused. There are far too many. But the damage they do is likely outweighed by the good and certainly outweighted by the overwhelming good of gentrification most of which occurs without TIF’s.

  As for “hostility” in non- gentrifying neighborhoods., that’s an observation that has little real meaning. If you want to say “hostility” should be a reason to stop change then there would be relatively few black folks or hispanic folks in this city. All those formerly white neighborhoods throughout the city would likely still be white……………….and depopulated.

  If “hostility” is a reason to oppose change then black folks better get used to being called “colored” or worse and be prepared to not vote.

  I don’t claim gentrification is a perfect process. I don’t claim that some people are not hurt by it. I do claim that the good it does outweighs the bad.

  If urban cores and cities are gonna thrive then gentrification is absolutely necessary.

• ABner says,

  “What it comes down to is that when I’m in neighborhoods on the edge of gentrification, I see a lot more suspicion and hostility than I do welcoming, and a lot more hostility than I see when I’m in non-gentrifying neighborhoods.”

  I wonder what you would have seen if you’d been with me yesterday in non-gentrifying East Morgan Park, or several weeks before that in non-gentrifying Roseland and Park Manor, or a bit before that in non-gentrifying Englewood, or .. or .. or …

  Tell you what I saw: no suspicion but lots of hostility.

• I’d like to hear from those Lisa Colemans for a change. They’re out there.
  —–

  Those people DO NOT HAVE COMPUTERS! You won’t hear from them on here.

• Mr. Zekas,

  I understand your point about balance reporting about the effects of gentrification. But I took offense to you calling Lisa Coleman’s concerns a “sob story”. I think everybody knows that there are a lot people that benefit from gentrification. I also believe there are many more positive stories about the Olympics improving the Washington Park area than the negative ones.

  You said you were sympathetic with poor people. Just be careful with how you word your posts. If you re-read what you said in your original post, it came off sort of snobbish and un-sympathetic to the poor people in that area who may not be home owners. Lisa Coleman didn’t write the story. Don’t take it out on the people, take it out on the reporters.

• I’m not sure I buy the entire premise that the media are “underreporting” the benefits of gentrification – the “G word” may not be used specifically, but every story on gentrifying neighborhoods usually includes at least a nod to less crime – the underlying assumption being gentrifiers = god-fearing, don’t-commit-crime folks.

  and for street crime, I’d agree, it’s pretty obvious gangs aren’t running the streets of Lincoln Park.

  but if we wanted to talk about more white-collar shenanigans, say, tax fraud, I have a feeling the stats might be a little different.

  people tend to see what they look for, IMO.

• irishpirate,

  Did you read anything I wrote? I don’t consider your comments worthy of response, since I already specifically addressed them. If you can’t see the difference between white flight and gentrification, it’s not my job to help you. I honestly do not care how old you are. It does not give you a free pass to act like a child.

  Mr. Zekas,

  You’re right, I should have been more specific. I’ve spent a good amount of time in non-gentrifying Austin and North Lawndale, and I know perfectly well the kind of resentment that exists there. But it’s obviously very different from what you encounter in, say, Humboldt Park, where many older residents were the “losers,” as they’ve been called here, from gentrification farther east decades ago. My point was simply that the feeling that I get on the street, which admittedly is of limited use, is that people generally do not see the prospect of middle-class people moving in as a godsend that will provide them with an economic windfall.

  There’s obviously a racial component to this, although I’d hesitate to overstate it; there’s a lot of studies that suggest that black urban residents have substantially less resistance to living in mixed neighborhoods than white urban residents do, on average, but the important caveat is that that willingness is only with the assurance that the neighborhood maintains racial stability. But of course, every neighborhood is different, and the phenomenon of black gentrification that’s happening throughout Bronzeville now is new enough, and I have little enough experience of it, that I can’t claim to know a lot about it.

  I agree with The_ACE–I just think it’s extremely presumptuous to dismiss very serious side effects of neighborhood change as “sob stories” that are seized upon by the left-wing media. Just from talking to people who have been through really difficult things as a result of being forced out of their neighborhoods, I could never be that dismissive.

• Abner, The_ACE,

  My original plaint was devoted to what I perceived as media bias when it came to reporting the effects of gentrification on specific individuals. That point seems to have been largelyy lost, or embellished with irrelevant media reporting, i.e. on the improvements in neighborhoods or the reactions of people moving into them in real estate sections and not in feature articles / general reporting.

  How, exactly, is one supposed to respond to someone who equates neighborhood change with theft? The Sun-Times reporting is a flat-out sob story, without any attempt to provide any balance or even to stand back a bit and question.

  To say that someone is being “forced” out of their neighborhood is to demean them, to make them non-actors in their fate, to assume that they have no power to cope or to adapt.

  And where are the people who are sympathetic to the fate of the poor when it comes to offering them the coping skills they need, or money or anything other than futile resistance – anything that might be genuinely helpful in dealing with what I concede is a real problem? Those people, I’ve been suggesting, are as much malefactors as the gentrifiers, if not more so due to their hypocrisy and the blind selectivity of where their sympathies are lent. Where were any of these folks when poor Polish people were terrorized out of Ukrainian Village by pillaging Latino gangs? Not heard from. But if a middle-class white person does something that indirectly has a negative impact, well patronizing protectors of the poor to the rescue!

  “Left-wing media” is not a phrase I’ve used here, for the record. There’s been a great deal of putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing my arguments, and not much willingness to confront them.

• Abner,

  I can’t see the difference “between white flight and gentrification”.

  I have news for you…………there are many similarities.

  Older residents generally lose out. Real estate interests benefit. Lots of “hostility” and people losing their social institutions.

  If I could go back in time would I legislate a “solution” to white flight? Would I say no blacks could live in some neighborhoods? Would I limit the number of hispanics on a particular block and then say no more?

  Would I legislate against “gentrification” now. Would I actively work to prevent gentrifcation.

  The answer to all of the above is NO.

  Gentrification ain’t perfect. But it sure as hell beats the alternative.

  As for my argument not being worthy of a response………you are correct. You are entitled to your own opinions Lil Abner, but you are not entitled to your FACTS.

• The differences between white flight and gentrification are important and quite straightforward. The forces that cause them are altogether different and have virtually nothing in common. What you’re saying is that an elephant is exactly like a rock because they are both gray. It’s nonsense. White flight is caused by panic and the inability of a group to coordinate, whereas gentrification is caused by changes in property values that make it financially impossible for an older group to stay in the neighborhood. If you’re interested–and I know you’re not, since you already know everything there is to know–I can point you to some very interesting work done in the 1970s by Thomas Schelling (which later contributed to his Nobel Prize) that shows just how white flight happens. Those forces have no analogue in gentrification.

  You wouldn’t try to enact legislation to combat white flight? Look at Oak Park. That village enacted some shockingly simple reforms to their housing laws, back when Oak Park was considered to be going down the same road that Austin went down. The primary policies were no “for sale” signs on properties and a housing board that deliberately steered prospective buyers into areas where they would be minorities to prevent the appearance of block after block being “turned.” Take a look at Oak Park now–it’s a stable, integrated village with poorer black areas to the east and to the west, past River Forest, in Maywood and Bellwood. White flight essentially skipped over it.

  Like white flight, the negative effects of gentrification can be addressed without using racist laws. I doubt that you’re actually not intelligent enough to understand this, which makes me think that you use cowardly and unimaginative race-baiting as a way to avoid actually thinking about what you are saying.

  I do agree with you about one thing: the main beneficiaries of both white flight and gentrification are real estate interests, which, after all, are largely responsible for both phenomena.

  Mr. Zekas,

  No offense, but this “patronizing protectors of the poor” business is starting to sound like a broken record. It’s an empty statement with nothing to back it up. You seem to be mirroring the complaint I made that your portrayal of the situation objectified poor people and denied the reality that they have political and social agency. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make much sense when applied to my statement that they are forced out of neighborhoods. When somebody can’t afford something, they have to stop consuming it. There is no choice in the matter. People can’t simply “choose” to earn enough money to keep on living where they’ve always lived. Often times, of course, people are quite literally forced out of neighborhoods via eminent domain or eviction. The fact stands that it doesn’t help your argument much that we see many local political movements to slow developers or at least get a seat at the table, but practically none to attract them. This silent majority you are postulating is certainly very well hidden.

• Abner,

  I think irishpirate’s main point is that a sleeping dog doesn’t know the diifference between being tripped over and kicked – the pain and the shock are the same, regardless of the cause.

  Perhaps you see no local movements to attract developers to non-gentrifying neighborhoods; I see many. Try looking at some of the faces of them on our videos at YouTube.

  You’re talking about political and social agency, which I contend is futile in many circumstances and is recognized as such by people who want to solve the problem rather than advance their own agendas, often at the expense of the poor. The social scientists and the activists have little to lose in losing battles, but the poor do. I’ve watched a lot of those losing battles and participated in many that I now regret.

  Individual agency can and should matter, and can and should be fostered. People can work more hours in some instances. They can, if the neighborhood isi valued so highly, often move to cheaper housing in the neighborhood than what they currently occupy. They can, in some instances, take reverse mortgages or sell their homes and rent in the neighborhood. And so on and so on … When they choose to do none of these things, i.e. when they prioritize the neighborhood lower than something else they value, your framing of the issue has them being “forced” out of their neighborhood. I believe that’s often a gross distortion of reality and wonder why it’s so.

  Moving on to the people who don’t have the individual wherewithal that some do … Where are the activists and the social programs to assist people in developing that agency or soliciting funds for those who simply can’t? That never seems to be an option that’s considered. If the poor don’t want to be helped your way, well – screw them is too often the result.

  As to the Oak Park experience, it’s simply irrelevant to much of anything we’re discussing here. And, some of us believe that violating fair housing laws is a bad thing whether or not the goal is theoretically noble. I don’t thinkk the Oak Park program could survive a legal challenge today.

  This is a fascinating and multi-faceted subject and we’re both distorting and simplifying each others’ positions by conducting it in this venue.

• @Joe

  “How, exactly, is one supposed to respond to someone who equates neighborhood change with theft?”

  Ms. Coleman wasn’t quoted using the words stealing or theft. The reporter typed the words “steal the neighborhood”.

• “To say that someone is being “forced” out of their neighborhood is to demean them, to make them non-actors in their fate, to assume that they have no power to cope or to adapt.”

  Joe I just discovered this site a few weeks ago. I recently e-mailed several of my friends to check out this site because I think it is a great resource. What resources do you have on this site so the people in the Washington Park area know that they have “power to cope or to adapt.”

  What resources are available for Ms. Coleman’s mother who is a senior citizen on a fixed income who wants to stay in the neighborhood she’s invested in for years? Or should she be penalized and looked down upon because she isn’t savvy about her real estate options? If you say there is an imbalance then I hope you use this site to show how people like Ms. Coleman’s mother made gentrification work for them.

  All I am saying these are real people not “sob stories”. A lot of people are investing more than just money in their neighborhoods. So please cut them some slack when they get emotional and say emotional things about their homes where they’ve spent 30, 40 years at.

• Joe, you said:

  “How, exactly, is one supposed to respond to someone who equates neighborhood change with theft?”

  You seem to imply that the change in question is neutral, ie, it’s not planned, that govt isn’t actively facilitating it.

  This is why so many people feel their “neighborhoods” are being stolen – because no matter how you break it down with statistics, sociology studies, etc., people know the pattern, and the end result is always the same – govt “intervention” via TIFs, or upper income development doesn’t result in a mixed community, the poorer people and the renters are toast.

  When you start to dig a little deeper, some patterns start to emerge – such as desirable locations in the City having their property value suppressed by the City locating public housing/ section 8/ homeless facilities in them.

  For example, a few years back there was a story about how Gov Ryan had a few pals buying up cornfields out west – turned out they were privy to some info about a new airport nobody else was.

  Well, in Chicago it seems to happen, but in reverse – the people making the mega-bucks are the ones who know when the undesirable populations would be moved out, and bought accordingly, and that’s how a killing is made.

  I’d bet an eye that right now there is a very small group of people who have had the capital to buy and sit on Uptown property that will skyrocket to the moon when some of the govt-assisted properties are moved elsewhere, much like with the South Loop or other areas where the large housing projects have come down – think about what you could have done if you had a lot of capital and had known 10 years ahead of time exactly when a certain project would see the wrecking ball.

  “Where were any of these folks when poor Polish people were terrorized out of Ukrainian Village by pillaging Latino gangs? Not heard from.”

  I do think this is a valid point (I live near one of the last outposts of a real Polish presence on Milwaukee, it’s wonderful), but Mike Royko did use to write about them all the time, it’s sad, no doubt.

• Carter,

  I think I’ve said, repeatedly, including in this thread, that there are negative effects and that I’m sympathetic to the plight of the people affected.

  I’m as cynical about Chicago politics and government as you are, if not more so, but I don’t think the population movements are engineered as easily as you seem to believe, or that they’re done purely for bad reasons. Even if they were, it’s hard to map that into anyone’s individual home being “stolen” from them.

  This city is, in many ways, in desperate trouble and needs to do some things to survive and prosper that will harshly impact some people. Fighting those things is not, in my view, always the best way to help the people who are being hurt. A corollary to that, in my view, is that many of the people doing the fighting ought to redirect their efforts to helping the poor more effectively. But, there’s no glory in that.

• The_ACE,

  Fair points.

  The people are due a lot of slack. Again, my point is that the reporters / media shouldn’t be cut any slack for their one-sided approach to this.

  As time goes we’ll try to identify and feature more of the resources that help people. One is Rebuilding Together, which repairs and renovates homes to help people stay in their neighborhoods. We recently did a video on this, and we’ll be featuring this organization much more. We’ve also done videos of some of the community organizations that are trying to foster economic development and employment programs, and we’ll be doing more.

  We have some new hires coming on board shortly and will be trying to focus our resources better as they get up to speed.

• “but I don’t think the population movements are engineered as easily as you seem to believe, or that they’re done purely for bad reasons.”

  I didn’t say they are done purely for bad reasons, but we have a Mayor-for-life and a weak Council- anything he wants done, gets done. this of course provides people in the know and in power with a lot of opportunities to tweak things for more profit.

  let’s look at IMO the most blatant example of Chicago’s system at work, and one which many old timers and poor folks are quite aware of. That would be the “Banks” duo, where father runs the Zoning board, and the son is a well paid consultant who works with developers to sell communities (or at least the alderman) on projects needing zoning changes.

  How can any reasonably objective person not see the conflict here? And where is the media on this one?

  these are the root issues of importance in this debate that we never see addressed, ever.

• I guess I’m truly the flip side of Lisa Coleman’s story.

  The difference is I don’t have kids but other than that we happen to be black women with fairly modest incomes.

  When I first rented on Beacon Street in Uptown I saw the neighborhood changing and also knew that I may not get married and have children (read tax deductions) for quite a while. Seeing that I was in my late twenties and had little savings, I was flummoxed on how to make this happen.

  Instead of pissing and moaning about how unfair everything is, I cleaned up my credit, made a larger contribution to my 401K for the matching free money and in a year or so took a loan to purchase my first condo near the corner of Leland and Magnolia. It wasn’t the Ritz and the initial rehab work was shaky but I met my building neighbors—most who remain close friends to this day—and immersed myself in my neighborhood.

  Despite the fact I loved my ‘hood (and that was before all of the “new stuff” got there) and my neighbors, I’m more of a space vs. neighborhood type of girl. Seeing that I couldn’t afford what I wanted on the north side, I case my eyes south and found Woodlawn. It took me a while to sell my place in Uptown but when I did, I more than doubled my money.

  I moved to Woodlawn and immersed myself in my association and neighborhood there as well. Moreover, when chatting with my neighbors on the block who rent, I implore them to buy as he or she who does not own will soon be left out in the cold.

  Don’t look at me like that folks, I didn’t make the rules.

  You see I couldn’t take advantage of the nice programs the city now has in place for first time homeowners since according to them I made too much money. I also knew that if I didn’t look out for me no one else was going to do so either. Renting is doing nothing but throwing money away. A young single person with limited financial resources should not be giving the government a larger portion of what they earn if they don’t have too.

  Lastly everyone knows that property ownership and improvement is a basic building block to wealth.

  You see I just have simple story of what worked for me, I’m not criticizing or judging anyone else. At some point I’m going to have to re-read Abner’s points as I thinks he’s so smart that his writings makes my head hurt.

  But I despite my black, feminist, democratic leanings I believe a few things to be true:

  1. No one owes you anything.

  2. You have to think three steps ahead of your current situation and truly assess and anticipate what may happen in the future.

  3. The individual or a group of individuals determine what goes on in their neighborhood. I’m a big proponent of “keep it local.” If you don’t like what’s going on find a positive (and legal) way to do something about the situation. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

  Am I the only person who feels limited compassion towards my fellow human beings? I’ll help you out but only for so long? Am I wrong to think that if you truly want to change your circumstances you’ll find a way?

  Does this mean I’m turning into a Republican? Perish the thought.

• Now I see the importance of just reading rather than participating. I enjoyed the reading I must say.

  Anyway, Woodlawn Wonder; I would have to agree that “no one owes you anything”…by the same token, I should add to that by saying “there are those that cannot do for themselves” so for that we do have ALL agree that some if not most of those that are currently renting in woodlawn will be SOL (and that’s a fact, I don’t need Abner to ignite my brain with his writings to know that, by the way..great writing Abner!). ..

  I too followed the notion that it was when it was time to move back to Chicago after a long stint living out of state (I under 27yrs of age by the way – take that in before responding); I increased my 401K, pooled some monies together, read up on what areas would be seeing change, what areas would inevitably get better, didn’t care too much about whether it was white or black…In the long run, I got bills to pay and school loans to return, and last time I checked nobody handed out a hand asking to help me pay for squat (that includes no parents to help with either)

  I have to be honest and say I only thought about the color GREEN. While this may sound bad to some…trust me, my developer made more on the property than I probably will, the “poor black owner” of the building prior to be it being demolished made more than I probably ever will and guess what my goal is? – To make more than they both did combined. Change is inevitable. (I forgot who said that, by God, is it true)!

  I remember when as a kid driving through Cabrini Green with the parents was code word for “that C you got in Algebra will make you end up here” …now I can buy my “Venti, Dark, Room for cream, three pumps of Vanilla syrup and a side of marble loaf to go for $7.36″ right down the street from what used to be Cabrini Green…. When I first came to this country, I never understood what being poor meant and everytime I go back to 9igeria to visit,

  I have a greater appreciation for the U.S and a distaste for those that don’t try to better their situation in the US (key word there being “those that DON’T try”..(figured I say that before someone pounces with essay reply)….Again Change is inevitable! Don’t lie to yourself by thinking the outcome of change whether right or wrong matters!- Guess what (1) we’re born, (2) we live, (3)some love, (4) and then we die!…

  That’s it…No mystery to this world. Enjoy it, realize that not all will enjoy it and do what you can to help those that don’t enjoy it and MOVE ON!.

• Now I see the importance of just reading rather than participating. I enjoyed the reading I must say. Anyway, Woodlawn Wonder; I would have to agree that “no one owes you anything”…by the same token, I should add to that by saying “there are those that cannot do for themselves” so for that we do have ALL agree that some if not most of those that are currently renting in woodlawn will be SOL (and that’s a fact, I don’t need Abner to ignite my brain with his writings to know that, by the way..great writing Abner!). ..I too followed the notion that it was when it was time to move back to Chicago after a long stint living out of state (I under 27yrs of age by the way – take that in before responding); I increased my 401K, pooled some monies together, read up on what areas would be seeing change, what areas would inevitably get better, didn’t care too much about whether it was white or black…In the long run, I got bills to pay and school loans to return, and last time I checked nobody handed out a hand asking to help me pay for squat (that includes no parents to help with either) I have to be honest and say I only thought about the color GREEN. While this may sound bad to some…trust me, my developer made more on the property than I probably will, the “poor black ownerâ€? of the building prior to be it being demolished made more than I probably ever will and guess what my goal is? – To make more than they both did combined. Change is inevitable. (I forgot who said that, by God, is it true)! I remember when as a kid driving through Cabrini Green with the parents was code word for “that C you got in Algebra will make you end up hereâ€?…now I can buy my “Venti, Dark, Room for cream, three pumps of Vanilla syrup and a side of marble loaf to go for $7.36â€? right down the street from what used to be Cabrini Green…. When I first came to this country, I never understood what being poor meant and everytime I go back to 9igeria to visit, I have a greater appreciation for the U.S and a distaste for those that don’t try to better their situation in the US (key word there being “those that DON’T tryâ€?..(figured I say that before someone pounces with essay reply)….Again Change is inevitable! Don’t lie to yourself by thinking the outcome of change whether right or wrong matters!- Guess what (1) we’re born, (2) we live, (3)some love, (4) and then we die!…That’s it…No mystery to this world. Enjoy it, realize that not all will enjoy it and do what you can to help those that don’t enjoy it and MOVE ON!.

• Now I see the importance of just reading rather than participating. I enjoyed the reading I must say. Anyway, Woodlawn Wonder; I would have to agree that “no one owes you anything”…by the same token, I should add to that by saying “there are those that cannot do for themselves” so for that we do have ALL agree that some if not most of those that are currently renting in woodlawn will be SOL (and that’s a fact, I don’t need Abner to ignite my brain with his writings to know that, by the way..great writing Abner!). ..I too followed the notion that it was when it was time to move back to Chicago after a long stint living out of state (I under 27yrs of age by the way – take that in before responding); I increased my 401K, pooled some monies together, read up on what areas would be seeing change, what areas would inevitably get better, didn’t care too much about whether it was white or black…In the long run, I got bills to pay and school loans to return, and last time I checked nobody handed out a hand asking to help me pay for squat (that includes no parents to help with either) I have to be honest and say I only thought about the color GREEN. While this may sound bad to some…trust me, my developer made more on the property than I probably will, the “poor black ownerâ€? of the building prior to be it being demolished made more than I probably ever will and guess what my goal is? – To make more than they both did combined. Change is inevitable. (I forgot who said that, by God, is it true)! I remember when as a kid driving through Cabrini Green with the parents was code word for “that C you got in Algebra will make you end up hereâ€?…now I can buy my “Venti, Dark, Room for cream, three pumps of Vanilla syrup and a side of marble loaf to go for $7.36â€? right down the street from what used to be Cabrini Green…. When I first came to this country, I never understood what being poor meant and everytime I go back to 9igeria to visit, I have a greater appreciation for the U.S and a distaste for those that don’t try to better their situation in the US (key word there being “those that DON’T tryâ€?..(figured I say that before someone pounces with essay reply)….Again Change is inevitable! Don’t lie to yourself by thinking the outcome of change whether right or wrong matters!- Guess what (1) we’re born, (2) we live, (3)some love, (4) and then we die!…That’s it…No mystery to this world. Enjoy it, realize that not all will enjoy it and do what you can to help those that don’t enjoy it and MOVE ON!.

• Woodlawn Wonder,

  yes, if you disagree with some people you are automatically a Republican or a racist.. I have been called it myself………..which is kinda amusing. I’ve always considered myself a moderate Democrat with a bad moon rising. Only time I ever voted for a Republican was for Topinka and Peraica in the November elections. Only because I couldn’t stomach the corruption and “hackatood” of Blago or Baby Stroger.

  Don’t let Abner’s overuse of complicated language and social science jargon impress you. Whether it is meant to obfuscate the issue or make him feel better about himself is unknown to me. Unlike him I don’t know all the answers. I “aint” got a monopoly on truth, wisdom, data and general goodness.

  Joe Zekas said one thing above which is brilliant in its simplicity: “This city is, in many ways, in desperate trouble and needs to do some things to survive and prosper that will harshly impact some people.”

  People look downtown, they see the improvements in the core of neighborhoods surrounding downtown and along the breadth of the lakefront and they assume Chicago is thriving. It AINT.

  Most neighborhoods are seeing a slow demographic decline in terms of numbers of people, jobs, income and a corresponding increase in crime. Zekas knows that because he travels around and has some experience. I know that because I am brilliant, well traveled locally, well read and did I mention brilliant?

  Many neighborhoods in this city basically have the same economic demographics of Detroit. That doesn’t make for a thriving city. Those who try to and sometimes successfully delay “gentifcation” like “The Woodlawn Organization” do more harm than good.

  Gentrification is not a “zero sum game”. Where one side has to win and the other side loses everything. It does work out that way for some people, but for the city as a whole it is a benefit.

  Just like the Trump Tower is a benefit. I would never live there based just on the name and probably space and income reasons. However, I indirectly benefit from it because of all the lovely property taxes the residents there will be paying. The doormen, engineers, property managers etc will benefit from the work created.

  The people in this city who live in slowly decaying neighborhoods benefit from the Lincoln Parks of the city. Someone has to pay for the schools, police, fire and other services that everyone uses.

• irishpirate,

  You mentione The Woodlawn Organization, so I’ll submit this for folks to ponder.

  TWO has been around for a very long time. An enormous number of resources have been poured into Woodlawn by TWO and other groups. The net result: for many years Woodlawn remained a poster child for urban decay, stagnation and decline.

• When decisions about your community are made by people that don’t live in your community, you can become a victim. The people in the areas surrounding Washington Park were not surveyed as to their thoughts about the Olympics. They didn’t have the opportunity to research, debate, approve, or deny the plans. They were blindsided. Many people in that area don’t want the Olympic stadium in Washington Park. Not just for the economic reasons that may or may not be beneficial to those in that area, but also because Washington Park is a well used park. Many small youth and adult sports organizations use that park. University of Chicago occasionally uses that park. Chicago Public Schools uses that park. And Its quite possible that there isn’t a single African American family from the south side of Chicago that hasn’t used Washington Park for a family gathering. Gentrification is good to those that are able to afford to keep their head above water while the neighborhood is changing. Gentrification is good to those that have the money to come into a neighborhood and buy property that is no longer affordable to the people that live in that area. Gentrification is good to the those that are sitting at the table (Greedy Politicians, Developers, and the like) and are able to plan to take advantage of a changing neighborhood. When you’re blindsided by gentrification, its not good. When you can’t afford to rent, pay higher assesments, pay higher taxes because of over priced new development in your area, its not good. People often think that those complaining about gentrification are dirt poor, stupid, housing project people, with bad credit. That’s almost never the case. Those that are most effected are working class people, and they shouldn’t be forced out of their community. You won’t understand the negative side of gentrification until the neighborhood you love becomes too expensive for YOU to live in.

• Oh yea, TWO managed to take a bad situation and make it worse. They are still battling against most “development”.

  Tis a sad and painful thing.

• ohpuleeezee,

  I think most of the complaining about gentrification comes from well-meaning but radically misguided outsiders, not from the working-class residents of a gentrifying community.

  The notion that people who live in an area should solely be able to decide outcomes on something that impacts a broader community is laughable – actually, beyond laughable. We’d have no expressways, resident parkiing everywhere, etc. etc. etc. We’d have a complete disaster rather than a city on the verge of it.

  Don’t we have elected representatives? You want to turn the whole structure of local democracy upside down.

• Maybe his / her phrasing could have been better, but I don’t think ohpuleeezee is actually arguing that only people living in a neighborhood should have a say in what happens there, just that residents of a community should have some input and be informed by their elected representatives about what’s going on. I’m not sure that the Machine now operating in Chicago is the best model of local democracy.

  Also, as a 15-year resident of a neighborhood that has gentrified fairly quickly, I’m not sure that most of the complaints about gentrification come from outside. I hear complaints from within the neighborhood constantly about the changes – and not just from renters. The financial motive isn’t the only one. Lots of people liked the neighborhood the way it was, and not only have property prices skyrocketed, the main commercial strip has transformed to include more and louder bars and shops selling exorbitantly priced specialty items rather than staples. Parking has become impossible. The impression is – and we have absolutely nothing to back this up but our observations – there are many more SUVs blowing stop signs and endangering lives since condomania took hold.

  I spent a couple of days interviewing residents of several courtyard buildings that were converting to condos in my neighborhood. None could afford to buy at the conversion prices, none had found comparable rentals in the same price range in the neighborhood, where they would have liked to stay. All were planning to move to areas they saw as less safe with schools that were not as good. Most of these residents had children and most had lived in the neighborhood for many years.

  The buyers, mostly singles coming from outside the neighborhood, were thrilled about the turnaround and the money they figured they could make in three years, when most planned to move again. The media, with its frequent stories of buyers making money by improving and flipping property, and its constant speculation about “hot” areas has helped create a bit of a frenzy about gentrification that makes most outsiders not living through it see it in an extremely positive light.

• “Most neighborhoods are seeing a slow demographic decline in terms of numbers of people, jobs, income and a corresponding increase in crime. Zekas knows that because he travels around and has some experience. I know that because I am brilliant, well traveled locally, well read and did I mention brilliant?”

  The City’s population has been rising steadily for some time (and please spare us your pre-west side riots census figure from the 50s, it’s like listening to someone talk about the stock market using only the 29 crash as a reference), and the murder rate has been dropping like a lead balloon.

  “I think most of the complaining about gentrification comes from well-meaning but radically misguided outsiders, not from the working-class residents of a gentrifying community.”

  in my experience growing up in some of the most gentrified neighborhoods in Chicago, complaints about gentrification come almost exclusively from the inside and working class. Whether you agree with the complaints or not, to pretend they aren’t there isn’t productive.

  What long time residents generally want to is be treated like residents of a community – not obstructions to a “new neighborhood order” that need to be removed.

  Wrigelyville’s numerous community organizations are the best example of that, and there is indeed a stark contrast between the longtime residents and the more recent arrivals.

  I can’t stress enough that this boils down to whether Chicago is going to be a City for families, or just one people at the peak of their earning power can afford to live in.

  what folks like irish pirate do not understand is that 20 years from now, new people will be moving into his neighborhood, and by his logic they will then be justified in lumping him in with the “criminals” who are keeping the hood down.

  anon said it best many moons ago, the issue is how to to replace the bathwater without throwing out the baby. neighborhoods do need new investment, new blood, etc. but removing families and seniors in the process starts a cycle that isn’t healthy for the region.

  “I’m not sure that the Machine now operating in Chicago is the best model of local democracy.”

  bingo my friend, bingo.

  I’m glad to see the frenzy passed – people who think they’re entitled to a 40% profit on their house every year and plan to move within a few years are more like problem gamblers than either neighbors or investors.

• Carter,

  most neighborhoods in this city are declining in population and in terms of demographic income factors. That does not mean that the city as a whole didn’t have a slight increase in population during the last census. That increase was largely driven by increasing numbers of hispanics on the SW and NW sides. The numbers of blacks and whites in the city actually declined.

  Now the census projections for 2010 show a slight decrease in population. I personally think they are likely wrong……..at least I hope so. They were off in their initial projections for 2000.

  Please don’t tell me what I do and do not understand. We fundamentally disagree but I understand what is happening. I just happen to focus on the positive aspects of it and not entirely on the negative. That is because I am like a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day. Hope in the wilderness. Truth and dispassionate observation in a sea of emotion and sentimentalism. A loaded 9mm Beretta that finds its way into your hand just before you are going to be beaten to death by a mob of long time enraged residents lamenting that things just ain’t the same.

  Your Lakeview is gone. Just like the Lakeview of the 40’s went before it. The old days are gone. The old days are always gone. If you take your beloved Lakeview and looked at it in 1940,1960,1980, and 2000 you would notice that it was very different each time. There are people out there who lament those changes each time.

  Unless you want to have NYC type rent control laws neighborhoods are going to continue to change. At best you can change it around the margins by giving people chances and programs to own their own condos in the neighborhood they are in. There are some good programs out there that give moderate income folks the chance to buy. Personally, I would prefer a city of more homeowners and less renters.

  Now you can lament that factory jobs are largely gone. You can lament that idiots feel the need to have two cars in transportation friendly neighborhoods. You can lament that the CUBS suck. Lamenting may make you feel good but the situation is not going to change.

  I’m the IrishPirate and you’re NOT.

  ARRRRRRRRRGH

• so Hispanics don’t count? between that bizarre distinction and your insistence that even though census figures don’t support your argument that it is still correct are quite bewildering.

  and you wonder why people tend to dismiss your ramblings… you aren’t a beacon of positivity, you’re a man with serious blinders on to any point of view besides his own.

  you completely sidestepped the issue that the murder rate has gone way, way down, btw, perhaps you should stop obsessing with a Lake View you don’t know and should stay a little more focused with the facts at hand.

  in the spirit of compromise, if you know of a way to make the Cubs STOP sucking, I’d be more than glad to hear it.

• Carter,

  Where did I say Hispanics didn’t count? I’m glad there are more people living here. What I said was that MOST neighborhoods in this city lost population. Most did. Including your beloved Lakeview. A small number of neighborhoods, mostly Hispanic, experienced growth. Now with the growth of the south and west loops there will be some new areas experiencing growth. I also expect to see population increase in parts of Bronzeville. I don’t think it will be enough to make up for the flow of black folks outta the city. Hopefully, I will be proved wrong.

  Most neighborhoods are also undergoing a slow economic decline……….not including your beloved Lakeview. You don’t see it because you choose to focus on the neighborhoods near and dear and close to your heart. I on the other hand look at the city in a MACRO way.

  As for the Cubs………I have no freaking idea. Sell the team to some crazed psychotic billionaire and you might see a winning team.

  As for the murder rate going down citywide…. I have news for you. It has more to do with improved medicine than anything else.

  The shootings are still happening far too frequently.

  Because of improved medicine it is hard to track crime by only using “homicide” as an indicator.

  Life ain’t simple.

• your follow up is woefully insufficient – no stats, just your usual

  I have been listening to naive people like you rave about our increased tax base for 20 years, but our taxes keep going up nevertheless, while our infrastructure is crumbling.

  so pudding, let me introduce you to the need for proof:

  when our taxes go DOWN while the problems have been addressed, you will have won the argument that gentrification has helped everyone. but as many of the posts here clearly state, life is indeed complicated, and it is full of viewpoints that aren’t any less valid because you pretend they aren’t there.

  and besides your typical strawman argument setup including my childhood in Lake View, and the city’s population in 1940, let me also add to that list Detroit, which you love to bring up as some sort of proof.

  newsflash: correlation does not equal causation.

  I’m outta here, I see no reason to continue debating someone who can’t even post like an adult under their own name (much less coherently).

• well, apparently only 1/2 of my post went up, c’est la vies.

• Oh Carter. I am so hurt you hate my posts.

  Oh well I am going to go take a walk through Lakeview.

  I like to look at all the neato changes.

  Toodles,

  IrishPirate

• Carter,

  the city’s population has declined in every census since 1950. Except for 2000.

  No more needs to be said.

  I prefer the Lakeview of today……….you prefer the imaginary idyllic Lakeview of your youth. As I have stated that Lakeview had good aspects. So does the current Lakeview.

• oops I thought I cancelled the unnecessary nasty second to last post.

  I guess my nastiness overcame me.

  As Mike Royko stated about letters he received “bring on the hate”.

• Joe:

  Not to get all technical on you, but the 2000 Census data counted 14,146 people in Washington Park, of whom 1,277 lived in owner-occupied units. That’s less than 1 in 10, not closer to 1 in 8. I’m counting people, not units. But if you want to count units, only 7.8% are owner-occupied, according to the 2000 census (with 22.9% vacant).

  And I’ll agree with you that the reporting on gentrification isn’t great, but when I read the papers, I count many more positive stories about gentrification than negative ones. It’s true that positive stories don’t usually mention the word “gentrification”—instead they’re about hearty souls who persevered and have now finally finished re-habbing their greystones, or plucky theaters (or art galleries, etc.) that have finally come into their own after years of struggle with the (now-gone) gang-bangers on the corner. And then, of course, there are all the real estate development puff pieces that fill the Sunday papers. And these are stories about gentrification, and positive ones, even if they don’t use the word.

  Yes, we’d be better off if our reporting weren’t so bifurcated and dichotomous; but to claim that there aren’t plenty of positive stories about gentrification in the press is to be willfully blind.

• Woodlawnite,

  I was sloppy in saying 1 in 8 residents instead of 1 in 8 occupied units, which was what I meant.

  Your point on mediai reporting doesn’t really address minie, which was about outcomes for people who live in gentrifying / changing neighborhoods. Residents who feel they’re negatively impacted get lots of media attention; residents who benefit from change get virtually none. I think this creates a feedback loop that contributes to more negative outcomes. Theaters, newcomers, etc. have nothing at all to do with the point I was making.