A couple of years?????? Maybe Maurice meant decades.
I find it funny that they highlight Urban Belly, Kuma’s and Hot Doug’s – none of which really reflect any sort of movement from Wicker Park or Bucktown. Hot Doug’s relocated from Roscoe Village. Kuma’s strikes me as more representative of other Belmont business further east, and Urban Belly followed Kuma’s in terms of new restaurants.
Carter,
At least they’re not calling it West Roscoe Village.
Joe,
you, speechless? You’ve been on a roll the last few days.
Perhaps Roscoe Village will become known as East Avondale.
Perhaps it will be a “hot” hood in two or three decades.
Overall, it’s a decent neighborhood. Particularly north of Belmont.
I think this project has a few people jumping the gun:
Although there’s no doubt it’s going to pull some attention to the long-derelict stretch of Milwaukee between Diversey & Central Park.
Interesting link Carter – is there an SRO/small unit apartment occupancy there now or am I thinking another corner? I remember one of my friends living in a building like that along Milwaukee and I remember it being at this corner, but this building doesn’t appear to be it – but it was like 15 years ago.
IrishPirate,
I could go positively logorrheic on “decent.” It’s “hot” that left me speechless. And the notion that anyone would believe anything an apartment rental service has to say about any neighborhood.
Carter,
Thanks for the link.
For those of you for whom English is a second language “logorrheic”
is defined as:
My first language is Chicagoese and “lororrhea” rhymes with
diarrhea, which makes me giggle like “da mare” after a large federal grant is awarded the city.
IrishPirate,
Looking out a decade, what’s your nomination for the next hottie in the way of neighborhoods?
I thought that Logan Square was the next hot neighborhood however I would put my money on East Village as far as retail and restaurants are concerned.
Joe,
I’m not sure there will be any “hot” neighborhoods over the next decade. I think the kind of price appreciation we saw in various Northside neighborhoods between 1970-2005 is unlikely.
If you define “hot neighborhood” as having better than average price appreciation between 2010 and 2020 I’m willing to make a few semi educated guesses.
In general I’d look to neighborhoods that are adjacent to other areas that have already experienced a great deal of gentrification AND have access to the CTA Brown, Red or Blue lines or are so close to Downtown that an EL line is less important.
The EASTERN end of Humboldt Park. EASTERN being the operative word.
I’d expect that Logan Square/East Village/Ukrainian Village will continue to sloooooooooooooooowly gentrify.
The parts of Avondale closest to tbe Blue Line. Let’s not use the word “hot”. Let’s call it lukewarm.
Rogers Park has taken a larger hit during the downturn than hoods to the south and I’d expect better than average appreciation there. Assuming you buy at distressed pricing.
Pilsen is likely to continue sloooooooooooowly gentrifying. Hispanic immigration patterns seem to be changing from initially moving to the city to moving directly to the burbs. Plus being so close to UIC and the Medical District has to be a positive.
Albany Park. Nice housing stock. Brown Line. It’s already experienced a great deal of “condoization” and I’d expect that to continue at a slower pace.
I’m tempted to say “South Loop”, but there is just so much vacant land and condo units that I think I should resist temptation.
Bronzeville. Similar to the south loop idea of resisting temptation.
Check back in 2020 and we’ll see how right and wrong I am.
IrishPirate,
I have a different take on what’s a “hot” neighborhood.
In my view a hot neighborhood is one that’s undergoing substantial transformation in a positive direction. That kind of change is generally – though not necessarily – accompaniced by above-average price appreciation.
Over the next decade, given the current and likely near-term economic conditions and a likely decline in Chicago’s overall economy, maintaining prices at or near their current level in an area may be the new price appreciation.
If I were to define “hot” solely in terms of price maintenance / appreciation, I’d say that Lincoln Park, Lake View, the Gold Coast, River North, Streeterville and perhaps the West Loop are likely to be the hot neighborhoods over the next 10 years.
2 years to Wicker Park? Nope. Let’s cut the guys some slack though, he may have been taken out of context or mis-quoted.
I have clients and close friends that live in Avondale and I’m in the hood often. Somehow the story failed to mention one of the best brew pups and relatively long time hipster joints Small Bar at 2956 N Albany in Avondale.
As for the discussion of crime in the comments of the RedEye post, there is definate gang activity that I’ve noticed in the hood, but my friends iving there or myself have not experienced any issues.
Joe,
well if the Chicago economy continues to decline you may be right.
I’m not quite as pessimistic as you. I’m a shiny happy person. All that cheap wine I drink makes me even happier.
This economy reminds me of the 70’s, but the 70’s were followed by gentrification taking off. So who knows?
Even if the Chicago economy continues in the doldrums there is another small factor at play. There does seem to be some small general movement of a significant portion of the educated and middle income groups back into cities.
I’m not naive enough to predict the death of the suburban lifestyle. The urbanists who believe that are more “fantasist” that urbanist. Most people still prefer a suburban lifestyle and that will likely continue, but if cities remain appealing to that significant minority of the educated and middle classes the slow gentrification of Chicago MAY continue.
I’ve looked at some of the census projections for Chicago and while the population is projected to drop the number of households is expected to remain about the same. Of course the pre census projections in 2000 were way off so we’ll just have to sit back and see. Grab a glass of vino and take in the numbers as they come in.
The west and south sides are largely continuing to lose population as the black working and middle class follows earlier patterns of whites leaving the city for the suburbs. The latest projection was 100,000 fewer black folks, 50,000 fewer whites and 50,000 fewer hispanics/other/drunken pirates.
I think what we may be seeing is Chicago “emptying out” on the west and south sides while the north lakefront and areas near downtown remain stable or grow slightly. The SW and NW sides generally seem stable as younger families are replacing the older folks who now inhabit cemeteries.
I guess we’ll see what happens. If you had told me in 1990 that Bucktown/Wicker Park would be as gentrified as it is today I would have scoffed at you. I felt the north lakefront would do well, but I completely misjudged other areas.
The one thing I’m sure of is that we will both be wrong in ways we are likely not even considering.
One area where I tend to agree with you is on “triage” regarding Chicago neighborhoods. I’m starting to take a Detroit or Flint Michigan approach to large swaths of the city. Turn the areas into farmland and move the people into neighborhoods that are still largely intact and concentrate city services there.
Englewood comes to mind as a neighborhood to “abandon” and Chicago Lawn(Marquette Park) would be a neighborhood to concentrate resources on. The housing stock in Chicago Lawn is still largely intact/renovatable and unfortunately that can’t be said for Englewood.
It’s an academic discussion at this point anyway. The political and social will does not exist to implement that idea here. Maybe if the new Mayor of Detroit has any luck with it we’ll try it here.
Check back with me in 2030 if we both haven’t “shuffle[d] off this mortal coil” because it would take twenty years to implement such a plan.
I’m hoping we will both still be around and that your “abandon all hope” for gentrification through 2020 speculation is wrong.
I believe we need vibrant cities for the good of the American Republic. Hell, for the good of humanity.
My thought is that the neighborhoods along the pink (and probably orange) lines will be the places with activity; a big component of “hot” neighborhoods, in the sense of change towards gentrification is interesting and affordable housing stock and street life which is why a lot of the now hot areas took off. South Shore could also be a future hot area – it depends on whether or not Jesse Jr is able to actually attract the people he claims to want to bring to the area to increase his constituents property values (I’m paraphrasing a bit here).
Sheridan B,
I’m up for a fresh look at South Shore. It’s a neighborhood that we’ve largely overlooked and should at least get to know better.
“I’d say that Lincoln Park, Lake View, the Gold Coast, River North, Streeterville and perhaps the West Loop are likely to be the hot neighborhoods over the next 10 years”.
Joe, isn’t this like saying Midtown Manhattan will continue to be “hot” in the next decade?
I think Logan Square will be the neighborhood to watch through 2020. Proximity to the the blue line is key. I think a neighborhood with “Humboldt” in the title will still turn people away for a while. I’m keeping an eye on East Village too. I hope this site is still up and running ten years from now so we can check our predictions.
I’d say all the neighborhoods NW from Logan Square that the Blue Line cuts through are good candidates for a very simple reason –
These neighborhoods are catching up to the extension of the line to O’Hare, which was fairly recently, historically-speaking.
Emkay,
No, but only because Midtown Manhattan’s not much of a residential area. Yes if you mean the Village, etc. or the Upper East and Upper West sides.
“Hot” is a relative rather than an absolute measure. In previous market downturns I’ve seen the formerly emerging neighborhoods cool substantially or completely stall out for extended periods with slowly eroding values. I’ll elaborate on this in a post over the weekend.
Yes Joe, you should. There has been some new construction there, but not a lot, and the existing housing stock is, quite frankly, superior to that of Edgewater and Rogers Park. Plus the fact that it’s got better access to downtown via LSD, Metra Electric and express buses (and a bit easier to expressways too). And of course, the lakefront and Jackson Park are an unbeatable combination.
Sheridan B,
If you can suggest some knowledgeable contacts it would be a great help. E-mail me at yojoe at yochicago.com.
Joe,
I really like South Shore. Granted amenities are lacking but the trade-off is affordability. If I lived in Chicago I would consider living there.
IrishPirate,
I’m not sure agriculture is best for large tracts of city land. I’d rather see the city land bank a bunch of property and try to get developers into partnerships. It’s got to go beyond TIF money on the South and West Sides. They need more than new sidewalks and street lamps. If you can build a new school and build housing around it maybe some suburbanites would take a look. Not knowing that the kiddies will be in a safe place to learn is probably the biggest turn-off to alot of parents. Most know that crime is not near the level it was twenty years ago. There are plenty of smaller plots and warehouse roofs to grow things on in the city.
daveydoo,
I’ve long thought that a mayor and city council that cared about the fortunes of Chicago would assemble large tracts of land, require parks and schools, wipe out the union-protecting rules that drive up costs, and invite developers from around the country to bid on the parcels.
Assemblage would be easy, given the political will. Suburban developers and national developers would stampede for an opportunity like that, knowing there’d be overwhelming demand and that they’d avoid the high level of risk, infrastructure costs, impact fees and multi-year lead times involved in their larger developments in the far-flung suburbs.
We don’t have that kind of mayor or that kind of city council, and there are no signs that we will in my lifetime.
Joe,
Libertarian types like yourself crack me up.
When things go well, praise the private realm. When things go poorly, blame the Government.
It is individuals and businesses that abandoned many of Chicago’s worst neighborhoods. Do you think the city doesn’t want to see investment in them?
tup,
Thanks for informing me that I’m a “libertarian type.” I hadn’t realized that until now.
Look at the evidence: the city systematically discourages and drives away private investment. Have you heard of Walmart? Read about the trade shows abandoning Chicago? Know what the head tax is? Ever get face-to-face with a city shakedown? Get fined $100s because a tenant dropped garbage outside a container? The list of disincentives could go on and on.
Ever talked to the individuals and businesses who’ve fled the city and asked them why?
Ever run a business here, tup? Know anyone who does?
I’m looking forward to your take on this when you open and try to expand your medical practice in Chicago. You really do need to get out of Kenosha. It’s clearly wearing on you.
Joe, I by all means am not condoning ANY of the city’s practices.
I am simply saying, as I implied before, that the sorry state of Chicago’s south & west sides (by extrapolating from previous observations of your logic) by your explanation is a fault of the city’s leadership; yet on the flip side will you credit city leaders for attracting generations of well-heeled investors and professionals to its gentrified neighborhoods for the past 3-4 decades? I’m guessing not..
For you it ain’t a two way street. And that’s the big, gaping hole in your logic.
tup,
You guessed wrong.
Joe, I’m sorry, I don’t have any contacts in South Shore to share, I’m afraid.
Joe, what did I guess wrong? So you agree then that the city should be given credit for the downtown area, west loop, near north, Lincoln Park, etc’s success?
Secondly, with the exception of de-unionizing labor, the city has done exactly what you proposed in your above post from 1/21 at 6:56 pm.
The redevelopment of public housing, the planned redevelopment of the Michael Reese & South Works sites–all huge, huge tracks of land that the city has handed or will hand over to private developers with the intention of creating full-service communities. Heck, at Cabrini Green the city is even giving a few million extra to help them along. But if people won’t buy, that’s not Daley’s fault.
Nobody wants to live in Englewood. That’s the problem. I have a hard time buying the idea that people won’t build/buy in these areas because of Daley or some Alderman.
tup,
Of course Daley gets some credit for the downtown redevelopment. Not Lincoln Park – that’s in a category of its own. But that development, to some extent, came at the expense of and was accompanied by the neglect of 90% of the city’s neighborhoods. A misallocation of scarce resources in my book, concentrating them where they were least needed but most visible to non-Chicagoans such as yourself.
No one wants to live in Englewood? That’s your usual backhand slap to everyone who’s moved there recently. As someone who attended a number of meetings in Englewood in the process of working on the rehab of two homes there (through my daughter’s church and through our office sponsoring one of them) I can assure you that there are some people who don’t want to live anywhere else. Snotty upper middle-class folks, perhaps not so much.
Cabrini, Taylor Homes etc. are in no way examples of what I was suggesting for redevelopment. The majority of Americans, based on their behavior and on what they say, want affordable detached single-family homes in suburban-style neighborhoods at outer-ring suburban prices. That would be doable in the city if there were the will and the concern for the city’s future at the expense of the narrow interests that currently rule.
I suggested there’d be swarms of buyers for what I sketched in my earlier comment. There haven’t been swarms of buyers for the CHA redevelopments. As long as we have city planners that want to tell people how they should live instead of listening to how they want to live we’ll have an ever-growing roster of doomed cities. I fervently hope Chicago doesn’t become one of them.
I
Last I checked, many of the homes in the CHA redevelopment sites are affordable, detached single family homes. Of course there are townhomes and some multilevel buildings as well, but come on we’re talking about the city here not the edge of sprawlville.
Last I checked, the proposal for South Works consists of a heck of a lot of single family homes.
A lot of the construction in Kenwood and the near south side has consisted of just that–single family homes.
Developers are building what they believe people want. I still don’t see how the city is somehow sabatoging this effort.
Give me some actual examples of what you’re talking about.
tup,
I repeat, from above: “affordable detached single-family homes in suburban-style neighborhoods ” Take a drive around some of the newer subdivisions in Kenosha.
The smattering of SFHs in CHA redevelopments do NOT, in fact, bear any resemblance to what would generate strong appeal. And note my earlier reference to parks and schools. And $500k is not affordable in any broad sense.
Please stow the “we’re talking about the city here not the edge of sprawlville” line.
If you want to see true sprawlville, just head out to huge stretches of the south and west sides of Chicago. Or to most of Detroit. Sprawlville on steroids. That’s where we’d be headed if you could build your vision of the city. Not enough people want to live the way you think they should.
Gee whiz, Joe, I was under the impression that the most popular parts of the city were the ones that look absolutely nothing like the winding cul-de-sac paradises that you describe.
You know: Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Bucktown, Wicker Park, etc etc…
You know, the neighborhoods where pretty much ALL the big construction has occurred & condos have sold–many of them suburbanites.
Last I checked, many of Chicago’s suburbs have been building townhomes and condo projects, certainly a lot denser than the kinds of developments you are describing.
Last I checked, many of Chicago’s suburban subdivisions are half empty with scores of homes in foreclosure. Does that mean suburbs should blame the “winding subdivision model” and its failure?
Your argument is self-contradictory and weak, and you are mired in the paradigms of an era growing in obsolescence. Give up the ghost on this one.
Oh, and I am still waiting for one–ONE example of how requesting developers to build in a more urban, pedestrian-friendly fashion has scared a developer away from the city. Give me one, Joe…
In addition to the above:
It amazes me how the Joe Zekas and Joel Kotkins of the world take so much pleasure in their perceived failure in urban living. Of course, it’s always convenient to pick and choose stats that support your point of view.
How does Joe Zekas, always lauding the great success of suburban over urban living, explain this phenomenon:
tup,
Lincoln Park is a glorious place to live and needs no explanation. But it’s not for everyone and it has zero to negative appeal to most people, including most of the people who can well afford to live there but opt for Winnetka or Barrington or Oak Brook or any number of other places.
You’re asking me for examples to support a claim about developers that I never made? What’s that about?
You accuse me of taking pleasure in the “perceived failure” of urban living. That’s outrageous, and you can’t find a single phrase I’ve ever written that supports your accusation in any meaningful way. Urban living hasn’t failed everyone. It delights many, including me. It’s failed many – but I take absolutely no pleasure in that.
An era growing in obsolescence? Only if you have unlimited supplies of medical marijuana to inspire that perception.
Any sentient being can see where, in many places around the US, the vast majority of residential development has taken place. It isn’t in the central cities or the inner-ring suburbs. And it’s not going to be, because it doesn’t accord with what most people want. Do you have any numbers to dispute Kotkin’s on people’s preferences? I didn’t think so.
I personally love urban living, as you well know, and am looking forward to returning to it. The “perceived” failure of urban living isn’t my perception. It’s the perception of the millions upon millions of urban dwellers who’ve abandoned the cities.
I first became familiar with your anti-suburban pro-density rap when I was in high school – nearly fifty years ago. The argument was lame, elitist, wishful thinking then and it’s dead now. Has been dead for decades. Reality overtook it.
More poor people in the suburbs? “It’s the economy, stupid.”
A few years ago I saw a great opinion piece arguing that the way to revive urban America was school vouchers. The article wasn’t written by the stereotypical voucher proponent. The guy was a liberal urbanist who loved cities. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the link.
Add in a sense of physical security and I think the author was on to something.
Two of the main things that drive growth on the suburban fringe is the relative cheapness of the land and the quality of public schools. There are obviously other factors at work also.
Vouchers would allow parents to send their kids where ever they wanted to for school and I think if they were used in the city the demand for urban living would jump dramatically.
I wouldn’t expect urban living to overtake the suburban dream as the lifestyle of choice for most folks, but the demand would rise.
I don’t think suburban cul de sac living is a necessary to bring back more people to the city. You could keep the street grid and alleys and still have plenty of people vying for city living.
Parts of Ravenswood and North Center in Chicago are a good example. Look at the “Bell School District” around there. Great school and plenty of upper middle income folks looking for housing in it because the quality of the education.
School vouchers might have a similar effect on a much wider scale.
I was walking through Ravenswood the other day and there are many nice 2-3 story SFH or small multi unit buildings on 30 foot wide lots that would make or do make an excellent housing choice for upper middle income folks.
Something similar could be created throughout the city by using school vouchers.
I’m not holding my breath. The city council doesn’t even have the courage to allow another Wal Mart in.
Better to placate the unions and keep the status quo.
In the meantime, like a prophet in the desert, I shall continue to impart my wisdom for the relatively few people who read this and large swaths of Chicago shall continue to be slowly abandoned.
Perhaps one day after my ashes have been spread in Lake Michigan my genius shall be recognized. I wouldn’t bet on it though.
The Asian carp will appreciate the tasty morsels when the day comes.
I know you get plenty o hits, Joseph.
However, the number who will see this post is relatively few. It’s a shame. I bring so much to the discussion. Not as much as I’ll bring to the Asian carp yet…………
Joe, you’re so full of it I can poke a hole in you and liquid BS will come spraying out. I asked you to defend this claim that somehow it is the CITY’S desire to not build winding cul-de-sacs and instead request more pedestrian-friendly development that obeys the existing streetgrid, and you came up with a whole lotta NUTTIN! Here was your quote that prompted my challenge:
“The majority of Americans, based on their behavior and on what they say, want affordable detached single-family homes in suburban-style neighborhoods at outer-ring suburban prices. That would be doable in the city if there were the will and the concern for the city’s future at the expense of the narrow interests that currently rule.”
^ Okay, so give me one example of how the city scared future residents and/or future developers away by not conforming to the cul-de-sac, massive front-loading garage, no-sidewalk model. ONE example, Joe. Give me ONE specific anecdote or example of how it is the existence of Daley and his Aldermen that have prevented people from choosing to live on the south side as opposed to concerns about crime and gangs.
Seems to me that plenty of developers came to the south side with the intention to build condos, townhomes, and even towers all by themselves but got killed by the economy; you know, the same economy that has put to death scores of newly built suburban subdivisions.
In response to your other conveniently brief and coy comment:
“More poor people in the suburbs? “It’s the economy, stupid.””
^ Another example of Zekas/Kotkin-esque reading what they want to read and ignoring the rest. Did you see anything about the proportion of poor GROWING in the suburbs in proportion to the city? Did you see anything about the balance of poor demographics reaching a tipping point and for the first time favoring the suburbs?
Of course Joe didn’t, because it wouldn’t support his worthless, obsolete theory about how cities are in a constant state of failure and suburbs are constantly thriving.
Oh, and for the record, I love many of Chicago’s suburbs.
Joe’s lazy handling of the article and attempt to cast it off as “the economy” is typical. Let me do his homework for him. Here is a quote from the article:
“Nearly half of the Chicago area’s poor live in the suburbs, the study shows. In 2008, 48.1 percent of the area’s poor lived in a 13-county region around Chicago compared to 38.9 percent living in the same region in 2000.”
^ This demonstrates a SHIFT of poor from the city to your precious bastion of affluent, American middle class life, the suburbs. Clear as day. Explain it.
tup,
Cul-de-sacs? Who’s building those any more? Where did I ever make reference to them? You haven’t been to many suburban subdivisions lately, have you?
Large suburban developers have not been active in the city ot any serious extent. That’s a simple fact that you can verify by taking a look at who the large suburban builders are. You do know them, don’t you? There are many reasons for their absence, including the city’s well-known hostility to “outsiders” – or preference for good-old-boy insiders, however you want to cast it.
My original comment referenced parks and schools as essential components of a particular type of development. The examples of Chciago schools scaring away family are too obvious to recite. When CPS is adding a well-publicized $60M 2-year program designed almost solely to keep kids from killing each other on school grounds – what more of an example do you need?
I handled your precious article in a “lazy” fashion because it’s a lazy article based on an inadequate analysis. In other words, your typical Trib reporting on the poor. Perhaps when you actually live here you’ll come to understand our newspapers better also.
First, there’s the stretch to the 13-county area to bias the numbers by sweeping in people not normally considered as living in Chicago suburbs. Second, there’s no mention of the fact that “nearly half of Chicago’s poor” equates to less than a quarter of the population of the 13-county area in question. Third, there’s no accounting for the initial differential in unemployment rates in the city vs the outlying areas, which likely explains much of the “shift” in question. Fourth, the area in question includes a number of suburbs that have completely, disastrously slummed over, in part due to the CHA’s moves. And so on. My initial point is accurate: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
You keep ducking my substantive points or radically mischaracterizing them. That makes this discussion less and less interesting.
Ducking substantive points as what this post above me was all about.
I had no idea that the Brookings institution conducted an “inadequate analysis”. Perhaps you can do your own study and disprove them. Until then, I’ll guess rightly that there has been a large shift of poor from city to suburbs, glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at that data yet simply unfathomable to somebody with a mid-1960’s view of the world such as yourself.
Regarding the rest of your post, you have failed to provide me with one example, ONE, to defend your assertions. Instead you played the tired old “I have been doing this for 20 years and I know Chicago better than you do and you need to listen to me and trust what I’m saying and you don’t even live in Chicago so stop being a smart ass” senile drivel that reveals just how firm the ground beneath your argument really is.
^ I meant “is” instead of “as” in that first sentence
tup,
There’s nothing easier than using broad numbers to paint an inaccurate picture of the facts on the ground.
The readers can amd will judge for themselves which one of us is ducking substantive points, and which one of us has more and more accurate current knowledge of the Chicago scene.
Joe said:
“First, there’s the stretch to the 13-county area to bias the numbers by sweeping in people not normally considered as living in Chicago suburbs.”
Disputed instantly by this quote from the article (posted by me now for a second time):
“Nearly half of the Chicago area’s poor live in the suburbs, the study shows. In 2008, 48.1 percent of the area’s poor lived in a 13-county region around Chicago compared to 38.9 percent living in THE SAME REGION in 2000.”
^ Since you don’t have a bold or italics option, I put the referenced part in capital letters.
Once again, Joe’s lazy BS comes out. Work’s getting busy now, so I’ll have to get back to deconstructing the rest of your non-arguments later..
tup,
Sigh. What was a stretch in 2000 remains a stretch today. You’re really grasping at straws when you question my reading comprehension level.
Instead of “deconstructing” try grasping the constructs first.
Joe’s second non-point:
“Second, there’s no mention of the fact that “nearly half of Chicago’s poor” equates to less than a quarter of the population of the 13-county area in question. ”
Thanks for pointing that out. Whatever the percentage is, they’re shifting to the suburbs.
Joe’s next failed attempt at disputing Brookings’ findings:
“Third, there’s no accounting for the initial differential in unemployment rates in the city vs the outlying areas, which likely explains much of the “shift” in question.”
^ There is a difference between “unemployed” and “poverty”. A laid off computer programmer does not necessarily live in poverty. Brooking’s study clearly describes a shift in those living in “poverty” to the suburbs.
You can spin your web of BS any way you’d like, but a shift is a shift, and the numbers speak louder than your rhetoric
“By 2008, suburbs were home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the country. Between 2000 and 2008, suburbs in the country’s largest metro areas saw their poor population grow by 25 percent—ALMOST FIVE TIMES FASTER THAN PRIMARY CITIES and well ahead of the growth seen in smaller metro areas and non-metropolitan communities. As a result, by 2008 large suburbs were home to 1.5 million more poor than their primary cities and housed almost one-third of the nation’s poor overall.”
^ From the Brookings institution itself. Read the capital letters. Read those words and drill them into your brain, Joe.
Joe’s final non-point:
“Fourth, the area in question includes a number of suburbs that have completely, disastrously slummed over, in part due to the CHA’s moves.”
^ Exactly! What else do you call a town that has seen an influx of thousands of poverty-dwellers? Not exactly a yuppie enclave, I’d gather? Well duh…
What’s my point? My point is this–city or suburb, you can no longer draw clear lines and say “suburbs are for professionals and the upwardly mobile, the city is for the stranded poor”. You have no basis to say, nor have you in any way shown me any reason to believe, that Chicago’s south and west sides are failing because of people’s “aversion” to urban design guidelines. It’s a weak, baseless, even silly, argument that you’ve shown no ability to defend.
Hakim’s razor: People aren’t moving in droves to the south and west sides due to crime and gangs, and local news reports daily of a shooting “on the south side”. Seems to be the more likely explanation.
tup,
At some point you’re going to have to clarify what you think these numbers mean instead of just babbling on about how I don’t understand them.
I understand the studies game all too well. It is, again, easy to cherry-pick your comparison points (what would 2001 vs 2008 look like?) and your coverage areas (What happens if you look at rhe more relevant 5- to 9-county areas?) to arrive at an agenda-driven conclusion. And yes, Brookings can be as agenda-driven as Kotkin is.
How is Chicago helped if its poor depopulate the south side in search of what seems a better life in Harvey or Dolton? How is it helped when new Latino immigrants flock to Cicero or, Berwyn etc. in lieu of Pilsen or Little Village? Again, the list can go on.
I don’t think you have any serious grasp of the meaning of the numbers you’re citing. Poor people abandoning the city is as negative a sign for the city – if not more so – than affluent people doing the same.
Thus far your argument seems to infer: poor people, bad; rich people, good; all suburbs the same.
Added: Was saving this, but I’ll drop it on you now – from your cited article:
“More than likely, experts said, the suburban poor are people who have lived there all along and are grappling with job loss, reduced pay and a flailing economy where one unexpected expense can send them into a tailspin.
Or, to put it another way – again – “It’s the economy, stupid.”
“The readers can amd will judge for themselves which one of us is ducking substantive points, and which one of us has more and more accurate current knowledge of the Chicago scene.”
I just finished reading all of the comments for this article and it is clear as day that Joe was ducking most of the substantive points that TUP made. Not once did Joe give a specific, substantiate example of the mayor and/or aldermen preventing developers from creating suburban-esque developments in the city. Not to mention, even without the smoking gun provided by the Brookings article, it is pretty obvious that the city of Chicago has improved quite a bit more over the past decade, relative to the Chicago suburbs. Just ask all of the companies that have moved offices from the suburbs to the loop, over the past few years or so.
Sir Isaac,
Thanks for reminding the readers of your oft-stated biases.
And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.
“And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.”
Maybe 15 years ago. Almost every article I’ve seen mentioning a Chicagoland company moving offices in the past few years has involved the company moving offices to the city and not to the burb, led by United Airlines. Can you name any big companies that have moved from the city to the burbs, in the last 5 years?
^ Sir Isaac, Sara Lee moved to the burbs about 4 yrs ago or so.
But besides that, no. And Joe will be unable to do so either, although he will insist it’s a trend without being able to provide any specific examples–something of a habit of his lately.
I can’t think of any in the short time I’m willing to devote to it.
Job growth stats in the city and suburbs are a good proxy. The city lags badly, ans is likely to continue to do so.
If you go back and understand my original point about the city assembling land for development you’ll see how ridiculous it is to accuse me of failing to provide an example of suburban developers. They didn’t come to the party because the city didn’t throw one and issued no invitations.
tup,
You commented while I was writing. And you’ll continue to ignore the data I provide and misrepresent the points I make.
Joe, read your own quotes. I’m not talking about job growth. Do you think I would be so silly to think that Chicago’s job growth matches would ever match that of its suburbs? You specifically said this, and misdirected us all ( (increasingly typical from you) with your unrelated stats above:
“And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.”
^ Pardon my poor grammar above (lack of edit function. I meant to say “Do you think I would be so silly to think that Chicago’s job growth would ever match that of its suburbs?
I’ve had a sherry’s and a few beers, so I’m out of this argument for the rest of the night!!!!!
I’m speechless.
A couple of years?????? Maybe Maurice meant decades.
I find it funny that they highlight Urban Belly, Kuma’s and Hot Doug’s – none of which really reflect any sort of movement from Wicker Park or Bucktown. Hot Doug’s relocated from Roscoe Village. Kuma’s strikes me as more representative of other Belmont business further east, and Urban Belly followed Kuma’s in terms of new restaurants.
Carter,
At least they’re not calling it West Roscoe Village.
Joe,
you, speechless? You’ve been on a roll the last few days.
Perhaps Roscoe Village will become known as East Avondale.
Perhaps it will be a “hot” hood in two or three decades.
Overall, it’s a decent neighborhood. Particularly north of Belmont.
I think this project has a few people jumping the gun:
http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4142
Although there’s no doubt it’s going to pull some attention to the long-derelict stretch of Milwaukee between Diversey & Central Park.
Interesting link Carter – is there an SRO/small unit apartment occupancy there now or am I thinking another corner? I remember one of my friends living in a building like that along Milwaukee and I remember it being at this corner, but this building doesn’t appear to be it – but it was like 15 years ago.
IrishPirate,
I could go positively logorrheic on “decent.” It’s “hot” that left me speechless. And the notion that anyone would believe anything an apartment rental service has to say about any neighborhood.
Carter,
Thanks for the link.
For those of you for whom English is a second language “logorrheic”
is defined as:
noun
1. pathologically incoherent, repetitious speech.
2. incessant or compulsive talkativeness; wearisome volubility.
My first language is Chicagoese and “lororrhea” rhymes with
diarrhea, which makes me giggle like “da mare” after a large federal grant is awarded the city.
IrishPirate,
Looking out a decade, what’s your nomination for the next hottie in the way of neighborhoods?
I thought that Logan Square was the next hot neighborhood however I would put my money on East Village as far as retail and restaurants are concerned.
Joe,
I’m not sure there will be any “hot” neighborhoods over the next decade. I think the kind of price appreciation we saw in various Northside neighborhoods between 1970-2005 is unlikely.
If you define “hot neighborhood” as having better than average price appreciation between 2010 and 2020 I’m willing to make a few semi educated guesses.
In general I’d look to neighborhoods that are adjacent to other areas that have already experienced a great deal of gentrification AND have access to the CTA Brown, Red or Blue lines or are so close to Downtown that an EL line is less important.
The EASTERN end of Humboldt Park. EASTERN being the operative word.
I’d expect that Logan Square/East Village/Ukrainian Village will continue to sloooooooooooooooowly gentrify.
The parts of Avondale closest to tbe Blue Line. Let’s not use the word “hot”. Let’s call it lukewarm.
Rogers Park has taken a larger hit during the downturn than hoods to the south and I’d expect better than average appreciation there. Assuming you buy at distressed pricing.
Pilsen is likely to continue sloooooooooooowly gentrifying. Hispanic immigration patterns seem to be changing from initially moving to the city to moving directly to the burbs. Plus being so close to UIC and the Medical District has to be a positive.
Albany Park. Nice housing stock. Brown Line. It’s already experienced a great deal of “condoization” and I’d expect that to continue at a slower pace.
I’m tempted to say “South Loop”, but there is just so much vacant land and condo units that I think I should resist temptation.
Bronzeville. Similar to the south loop idea of resisting temptation.
Check back in 2020 and we’ll see how right and wrong I am.
IrishPirate,
I have a different take on what’s a “hot” neighborhood.
In my view a hot neighborhood is one that’s undergoing substantial transformation in a positive direction. That kind of change is generally – though not necessarily – accompaniced by above-average price appreciation.
Over the next decade, given the current and likely near-term economic conditions and a likely decline in Chicago’s overall economy, maintaining prices at or near their current level in an area may be the new price appreciation.
If I were to define “hot” solely in terms of price maintenance / appreciation, I’d say that Lincoln Park, Lake View, the Gold Coast, River North, Streeterville and perhaps the West Loop are likely to be the hot neighborhoods over the next 10 years.
2 years to Wicker Park? Nope. Let’s cut the guys some slack though, he may have been taken out of context or mis-quoted.
I have clients and close friends that live in Avondale and I’m in the hood often. Somehow the story failed to mention one of the best brew pups and relatively long time hipster joints Small Bar at 2956 N Albany in Avondale.
As for the discussion of crime in the comments of the RedEye post, there is definate gang activity that I’ve noticed in the hood, but my friends iving there or myself have not experienced any issues.
Joe,
well if the Chicago economy continues to decline you may be right.
I’m not quite as pessimistic as you. I’m a shiny happy person. All that cheap wine I drink makes me even happier.
This economy reminds me of the 70’s, but the 70’s were followed by gentrification taking off. So who knows?
Even if the Chicago economy continues in the doldrums there is another small factor at play. There does seem to be some small general movement of a significant portion of the educated and middle income groups back into cities.
I’m not naive enough to predict the death of the suburban lifestyle. The urbanists who believe that are more “fantasist” that urbanist. Most people still prefer a suburban lifestyle and that will likely continue, but if cities remain appealing to that significant minority of the educated and middle classes the slow gentrification of Chicago MAY continue.
I’ve looked at some of the census projections for Chicago and while the population is projected to drop the number of households is expected to remain about the same. Of course the pre census projections in 2000 were way off so we’ll just have to sit back and see. Grab a glass of vino and take in the numbers as they come in.
The west and south sides are largely continuing to lose population as the black working and middle class follows earlier patterns of whites leaving the city for the suburbs. The latest projection was 100,000 fewer black folks, 50,000 fewer whites and 50,000 fewer hispanics/other/drunken pirates.
Lee Bey has a new blog and a recent post highlights the “emptiness” of a large part of Chicago.
I think what we may be seeing is Chicago “emptying out” on the west and south sides while the north lakefront and areas near downtown remain stable or grow slightly. The SW and NW sides generally seem stable as younger families are replacing the older folks who now inhabit cemeteries.
I guess we’ll see what happens. If you had told me in 1990 that Bucktown/Wicker Park would be as gentrified as it is today I would have scoffed at you. I felt the north lakefront would do well, but I completely misjudged other areas.
The one thing I’m sure of is that we will both be wrong in ways we are likely not even considering.
One area where I tend to agree with you is on “triage” regarding Chicago neighborhoods. I’m starting to take a Detroit or Flint Michigan approach to large swaths of the city. Turn the areas into farmland and move the people into neighborhoods that are still largely intact and concentrate city services there.
Englewood comes to mind as a neighborhood to “abandon” and Chicago Lawn(Marquette Park) would be a neighborhood to concentrate resources on. The housing stock in Chicago Lawn is still largely intact/renovatable and unfortunately that can’t be said for Englewood.
It’s an academic discussion at this point anyway. The political and social will does not exist to implement that idea here. Maybe if the new Mayor of Detroit has any luck with it we’ll try it here.
Check back with me in 2030 if we both haven’t “shuffle[d] off this mortal coil” because it would take twenty years to implement such a plan.
I’m hoping we will both still be around and that your “abandon all hope” for gentrification through 2020 speculation is wrong.
I believe we need vibrant cities for the good of the American Republic. Hell, for the good of humanity.
My thought is that the neighborhoods along the pink (and probably orange) lines will be the places with activity; a big component of “hot” neighborhoods, in the sense of change towards gentrification is interesting and affordable housing stock and street life which is why a lot of the now hot areas took off. South Shore could also be a future hot area – it depends on whether or not Jesse Jr is able to actually attract the people he claims to want to bring to the area to increase his constituents property values (I’m paraphrasing a bit here).
Sheridan B,
I’m up for a fresh look at South Shore. It’s a neighborhood that we’ve largely overlooked and should at least get to know better.
“I’d say that Lincoln Park, Lake View, the Gold Coast, River North, Streeterville and perhaps the West Loop are likely to be the hot neighborhoods over the next 10 years”.
Joe, isn’t this like saying Midtown Manhattan will continue to be “hot” in the next decade?
I think Logan Square will be the neighborhood to watch through 2020. Proximity to the the blue line is key. I think a neighborhood with “Humboldt” in the title will still turn people away for a while. I’m keeping an eye on East Village too. I hope this site is still up and running ten years from now so we can check our predictions.
I’d say all the neighborhoods NW from Logan Square that the Blue Line cuts through are good candidates for a very simple reason –
These neighborhoods are catching up to the extension of the line to O’Hare, which was fairly recently, historically-speaking.
Emkay,
No, but only because Midtown Manhattan’s not much of a residential area. Yes if you mean the Village, etc. or the Upper East and Upper West sides.
“Hot” is a relative rather than an absolute measure. In previous market downturns I’ve seen the formerly emerging neighborhoods cool substantially or completely stall out for extended periods with slowly eroding values. I’ll elaborate on this in a post over the weekend.
Yes Joe, you should. There has been some new construction there, but not a lot, and the existing housing stock is, quite frankly, superior to that of Edgewater and Rogers Park. Plus the fact that it’s got better access to downtown via LSD, Metra Electric and express buses (and a bit easier to expressways too). And of course, the lakefront and Jackson Park are an unbeatable combination.
Sheridan B,
If you can suggest some knowledgeable contacts it would be a great help. E-mail me at yojoe at yochicago.com.
Joe,
I really like South Shore. Granted amenities are lacking but the trade-off is affordability. If I lived in Chicago I would consider living there.
IrishPirate,
I’m not sure agriculture is best for large tracts of city land. I’d rather see the city land bank a bunch of property and try to get developers into partnerships. It’s got to go beyond TIF money on the South and West Sides. They need more than new sidewalks and street lamps. If you can build a new school and build housing around it maybe some suburbanites would take a look. Not knowing that the kiddies will be in a safe place to learn is probably the biggest turn-off to alot of parents. Most know that crime is not near the level it was twenty years ago. There are plenty of smaller plots and warehouse roofs to grow things on in the city.
daveydoo,
I’ve long thought that a mayor and city council that cared about the fortunes of Chicago would assemble large tracts of land, require parks and schools, wipe out the union-protecting rules that drive up costs, and invite developers from around the country to bid on the parcels.
Assemblage would be easy, given the political will. Suburban developers and national developers would stampede for an opportunity like that, knowing there’d be overwhelming demand and that they’d avoid the high level of risk, infrastructure costs, impact fees and multi-year lead times involved in their larger developments in the far-flung suburbs.
We don’t have that kind of mayor or that kind of city council, and there are no signs that we will in my lifetime.
Joe,
Libertarian types like yourself crack me up.
When things go well, praise the private realm. When things go poorly, blame the Government.
It is individuals and businesses that abandoned many of Chicago’s worst neighborhoods. Do you think the city doesn’t want to see investment in them?
tup,
Thanks for informing me that I’m a “libertarian type.” I hadn’t realized that until now.
Look at the evidence: the city systematically discourages and drives away private investment. Have you heard of Walmart? Read about the trade shows abandoning Chicago? Know what the head tax is? Ever get face-to-face with a city shakedown? Get fined $100s because a tenant dropped garbage outside a container? The list of disincentives could go on and on.
Ever talked to the individuals and businesses who’ve fled the city and asked them why?
Ever run a business here, tup? Know anyone who does?
I’m looking forward to your take on this when you open and try to expand your medical practice in Chicago. You really do need to get out of Kenosha. It’s clearly wearing on you.
Joe, I by all means am not condoning ANY of the city’s practices.
I am simply saying, as I implied before, that the sorry state of Chicago’s south & west sides (by extrapolating from previous observations of your logic) by your explanation is a fault of the city’s leadership; yet on the flip side will you credit city leaders for attracting generations of well-heeled investors and professionals to its gentrified neighborhoods for the past 3-4 decades? I’m guessing not..
For you it ain’t a two way street. And that’s the big, gaping hole in your logic.
tup,
You guessed wrong.
Joe, I’m sorry, I don’t have any contacts in South Shore to share, I’m afraid.
Joe, what did I guess wrong? So you agree then that the city should be given credit for the downtown area, west loop, near north, Lincoln Park, etc’s success?
Secondly, with the exception of de-unionizing labor, the city has done exactly what you proposed in your above post from 1/21 at 6:56 pm.
The redevelopment of public housing, the planned redevelopment of the Michael Reese & South Works sites–all huge, huge tracks of land that the city has handed or will hand over to private developers with the intention of creating full-service communities. Heck, at Cabrini Green the city is even giving a few million extra to help them along. But if people won’t buy, that’s not Daley’s fault.
Nobody wants to live in Englewood. That’s the problem. I have a hard time buying the idea that people won’t build/buy in these areas because of Daley or some Alderman.
tup,
Of course Daley gets some credit for the downtown redevelopment. Not Lincoln Park – that’s in a category of its own. But that development, to some extent, came at the expense of and was accompanied by the neglect of 90% of the city’s neighborhoods. A misallocation of scarce resources in my book, concentrating them where they were least needed but most visible to non-Chicagoans such as yourself.
No one wants to live in Englewood? That’s your usual backhand slap to everyone who’s moved there recently. As someone who attended a number of meetings in Englewood in the process of working on the rehab of two homes there (through my daughter’s church and through our office sponsoring one of them) I can assure you that there are some people who don’t want to live anywhere else. Snotty upper middle-class folks, perhaps not so much.
Cabrini, Taylor Homes etc. are in no way examples of what I was suggesting for redevelopment. The majority of Americans, based on their behavior and on what they say, want affordable detached single-family homes in suburban-style neighborhoods at outer-ring suburban prices. That would be doable in the city if there were the will and the concern for the city’s future at the expense of the narrow interests that currently rule.
I suggested there’d be swarms of buyers for what I sketched in my earlier comment. There haven’t been swarms of buyers for the CHA redevelopments. As long as we have city planners that want to tell people how they should live instead of listening to how they want to live we’ll have an ever-growing roster of doomed cities. I fervently hope Chicago doesn’t become one of them.
I
Last I checked, many of the homes in the CHA redevelopment sites are affordable, detached single family homes. Of course there are townhomes and some multilevel buildings as well, but come on we’re talking about the city here not the edge of sprawlville.
Last I checked, the proposal for South Works consists of a heck of a lot of single family homes.
A lot of the construction in Kenwood and the near south side has consisted of just that–single family homes.
Developers are building what they believe people want. I still don’t see how the city is somehow sabatoging this effort.
Give me some actual examples of what you’re talking about.
tup,
I repeat, from above: “affordable detached single-family homes in suburban-style neighborhoods ” Take a drive around some of the newer subdivisions in Kenosha.
The smattering of SFHs in CHA redevelopments do NOT, in fact, bear any resemblance to what would generate strong appeal. And note my earlier reference to parks and schools. And $500k is not affordable in any broad sense.
Please stow the “we’re talking about the city here not the edge of sprawlville” line.
If you want to see true sprawlville, just head out to huge stretches of the south and west sides of Chicago. Or to most of Detroit. Sprawlville on steroids. That’s where we’d be headed if you could build your vision of the city. Not enough people want to live the way you think they should.
Gee whiz, Joe, I was under the impression that the most popular parts of the city were the ones that look absolutely nothing like the winding cul-de-sac paradises that you describe.
You know: Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Bucktown, Wicker Park, etc etc…
You know, the neighborhoods where pretty much ALL the big construction has occurred & condos have sold–many of them suburbanites.
Last I checked, many of Chicago’s suburbs have been building townhomes and condo projects, certainly a lot denser than the kinds of developments you are describing.
Last I checked, many of Chicago’s suburban subdivisions are half empty with scores of homes in foreclosure. Does that mean suburbs should blame the “winding subdivision model” and its failure?
Your argument is self-contradictory and weak, and you are mired in the paradigms of an era growing in obsolescence. Give up the ghost on this one.
Oh, and I am still waiting for one–ONE example of how requesting developers to build in a more urban, pedestrian-friendly fashion has scared a developer away from the city. Give me one, Joe…
In addition to the above:
It amazes me how the Joe Zekas and Joel Kotkins of the world take so much pleasure in their perceived failure in urban living. Of course, it’s always convenient to pick and choose stats that support your point of view.
How does Joe Zekas, always lauding the great success of suburban over urban living, explain this phenomenon:
tup,
Lincoln Park is a glorious place to live and needs no explanation. But it’s not for everyone and it has zero to negative appeal to most people, including most of the people who can well afford to live there but opt for Winnetka or Barrington or Oak Brook or any number of other places.
You’re asking me for examples to support a claim about developers that I never made? What’s that about?
You accuse me of taking pleasure in the “perceived failure” of urban living. That’s outrageous, and you can’t find a single phrase I’ve ever written that supports your accusation in any meaningful way. Urban living hasn’t failed everyone. It delights many, including me. It’s failed many – but I take absolutely no pleasure in that.
An era growing in obsolescence? Only if you have unlimited supplies of medical marijuana to inspire that perception.
Any sentient being can see where, in many places around the US, the vast majority of residential development has taken place. It isn’t in the central cities or the inner-ring suburbs. And it’s not going to be, because it doesn’t accord with what most people want. Do you have any numbers to dispute Kotkin’s on people’s preferences? I didn’t think so.
I personally love urban living, as you well know, and am looking forward to returning to it. The “perceived” failure of urban living isn’t my perception. It’s the perception of the millions upon millions of urban dwellers who’ve abandoned the cities.
I first became familiar with your anti-suburban pro-density rap when I was in high school – nearly fifty years ago. The argument was lame, elitist, wishful thinking then and it’s dead now. Has been dead for decades. Reality overtook it.
More poor people in the suburbs? “It’s the economy, stupid.”
A few years ago I saw a great opinion piece arguing that the way to revive urban America was school vouchers. The article wasn’t written by the stereotypical voucher proponent. The guy was a liberal urbanist who loved cities. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the link.
Add in a sense of physical security and I think the author was on to something.
Two of the main things that drive growth on the suburban fringe is the relative cheapness of the land and the quality of public schools. There are obviously other factors at work also.
Vouchers would allow parents to send their kids where ever they wanted to for school and I think if they were used in the city the demand for urban living would jump dramatically.
I wouldn’t expect urban living to overtake the suburban dream as the lifestyle of choice for most folks, but the demand would rise.
I don’t think suburban cul de sac living is a necessary to bring back more people to the city. You could keep the street grid and alleys and still have plenty of people vying for city living.
Parts of Ravenswood and North Center in Chicago are a good example. Look at the “Bell School District” around there. Great school and plenty of upper middle income folks looking for housing in it because the quality of the education.
School vouchers might have a similar effect on a much wider scale.
I was walking through Ravenswood the other day and there are many nice 2-3 story SFH or small multi unit buildings on 30 foot wide lots that would make or do make an excellent housing choice for upper middle income folks.
Something similar could be created throughout the city by using school vouchers.
I’m not holding my breath. The city council doesn’t even have the courage to allow another Wal Mart in.
Better to placate the unions and keep the status quo.
In the meantime, like a prophet in the desert, I shall continue to impart my wisdom for the relatively few people who read this and large swaths of Chicago shall continue to be slowly abandoned.
Perhaps one day after my ashes have been spread in Lake Michigan my genius shall be recognized. I wouldn’t bet on it though.
Nighty nite.
Lots more readers here than you might think, IrishPirate.
The Asian carp will appreciate the tasty morsels when the day comes.
I know you get plenty o hits, Joseph.
However, the number who will see this post is relatively few. It’s a shame. I bring so much to the discussion. Not as much as I’ll bring to the Asian carp yet…………
Joe, you’re so full of it I can poke a hole in you and liquid BS will come spraying out. I asked you to defend this claim that somehow it is the CITY’S desire to not build winding cul-de-sacs and instead request more pedestrian-friendly development that obeys the existing streetgrid, and you came up with a whole lotta NUTTIN! Here was your quote that prompted my challenge:
“The majority of Americans, based on their behavior and on what they say, want affordable detached single-family homes in suburban-style neighborhoods at outer-ring suburban prices. That would be doable in the city if there were the will and the concern for the city’s future at the expense of the narrow interests that currently rule.”
^ Okay, so give me one example of how the city scared future residents and/or future developers away by not conforming to the cul-de-sac, massive front-loading garage, no-sidewalk model. ONE example, Joe. Give me ONE specific anecdote or example of how it is the existence of Daley and his Aldermen that have prevented people from choosing to live on the south side as opposed to concerns about crime and gangs.
Seems to me that plenty of developers came to the south side with the intention to build condos, townhomes, and even towers all by themselves but got killed by the economy; you know, the same economy that has put to death scores of newly built suburban subdivisions.
In response to your other conveniently brief and coy comment:
“More poor people in the suburbs? “It’s the economy, stupid.””
^ Another example of Zekas/Kotkin-esque reading what they want to read and ignoring the rest. Did you see anything about the proportion of poor GROWING in the suburbs in proportion to the city? Did you see anything about the balance of poor demographics reaching a tipping point and for the first time favoring the suburbs?
Of course Joe didn’t, because it wouldn’t support his worthless, obsolete theory about how cities are in a constant state of failure and suburbs are constantly thriving.
Oh, and for the record, I love many of Chicago’s suburbs.
Joe’s lazy handling of the article and attempt to cast it off as “the economy” is typical. Let me do his homework for him. Here is a quote from the article:
“Nearly half of the Chicago area’s poor live in the suburbs, the study shows. In 2008, 48.1 percent of the area’s poor lived in a 13-county region around Chicago compared to 38.9 percent living in the same region in 2000.”
^ This demonstrates a SHIFT of poor from the city to your precious bastion of affluent, American middle class life, the suburbs. Clear as day. Explain it.
tup,
Cul-de-sacs? Who’s building those any more? Where did I ever make reference to them? You haven’t been to many suburban subdivisions lately, have you?
Large suburban developers have not been active in the city ot any serious extent. That’s a simple fact that you can verify by taking a look at who the large suburban builders are. You do know them, don’t you? There are many reasons for their absence, including the city’s well-known hostility to “outsiders” – or preference for good-old-boy insiders, however you want to cast it.
My original comment referenced parks and schools as essential components of a particular type of development. The examples of Chciago schools scaring away family are too obvious to recite. When CPS is adding a well-publicized $60M 2-year program designed almost solely to keep kids from killing each other on school grounds – what more of an example do you need?
I handled your precious article in a “lazy” fashion because it’s a lazy article based on an inadequate analysis. In other words, your typical Trib reporting on the poor. Perhaps when you actually live here you’ll come to understand our newspapers better also.
First, there’s the stretch to the 13-county area to bias the numbers by sweeping in people not normally considered as living in Chicago suburbs. Second, there’s no mention of the fact that “nearly half of Chicago’s poor” equates to less than a quarter of the population of the 13-county area in question. Third, there’s no accounting for the initial differential in unemployment rates in the city vs the outlying areas, which likely explains much of the “shift” in question. Fourth, the area in question includes a number of suburbs that have completely, disastrously slummed over, in part due to the CHA’s moves. And so on. My initial point is accurate: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
You keep ducking my substantive points or radically mischaracterizing them. That makes this discussion less and less interesting.
Ducking substantive points as what this post above me was all about.
I had no idea that the Brookings institution conducted an “inadequate analysis”. Perhaps you can do your own study and disprove them. Until then, I’ll guess rightly that there has been a large shift of poor from city to suburbs, glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at that data yet simply unfathomable to somebody with a mid-1960’s view of the world such as yourself.
Regarding the rest of your post, you have failed to provide me with one example, ONE, to defend your assertions. Instead you played the tired old “I have been doing this for 20 years and I know Chicago better than you do and you need to listen to me and trust what I’m saying and you don’t even live in Chicago so stop being a smart ass” senile drivel that reveals just how firm the ground beneath your argument really is.
^ I meant “is” instead of “as” in that first sentence
tup,
There’s nothing easier than using broad numbers to paint an inaccurate picture of the facts on the ground.
The readers can amd will judge for themselves which one of us is ducking substantive points, and which one of us has more and more accurate current knowledge of the Chicago scene.
Joe said:
“First, there’s the stretch to the 13-county area to bias the numbers by sweeping in people not normally considered as living in Chicago suburbs.”
Disputed instantly by this quote from the article (posted by me now for a second time):
“Nearly half of the Chicago area’s poor live in the suburbs, the study shows. In 2008, 48.1 percent of the area’s poor lived in a 13-county region around Chicago compared to 38.9 percent living in THE SAME REGION in 2000.”
^ Since you don’t have a bold or italics option, I put the referenced part in capital letters.
Once again, Joe’s lazy BS comes out. Work’s getting busy now, so I’ll have to get back to deconstructing the rest of your non-arguments later..
tup,
Sigh. What was a stretch in 2000 remains a stretch today. You’re really grasping at straws when you question my reading comprehension level.
Instead of “deconstructing” try grasping the constructs first.
Joe’s second non-point:
“Second, there’s no mention of the fact that “nearly half of Chicago’s poor” equates to less than a quarter of the population of the 13-county area in question. ”
Thanks for pointing that out. Whatever the percentage is, they’re shifting to the suburbs.
Joe’s next failed attempt at disputing Brookings’ findings:
“Third, there’s no accounting for the initial differential in unemployment rates in the city vs the outlying areas, which likely explains much of the “shift” in question.”
^ There is a difference between “unemployed” and “poverty”. A laid off computer programmer does not necessarily live in poverty. Brooking’s study clearly describes a shift in those living in “poverty” to the suburbs.
You can spin your web of BS any way you’d like, but a shift is a shift, and the numbers speak louder than your rhetoric
“By 2008, suburbs were home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the country. Between 2000 and 2008, suburbs in the country’s largest metro areas saw their poor population grow by 25 percent—ALMOST FIVE TIMES FASTER THAN PRIMARY CITIES and well ahead of the growth seen in smaller metro areas and non-metropolitan communities. As a result, by 2008 large suburbs were home to 1.5 million more poor than their primary cities and housed almost one-third of the nation’s poor overall.”
^ From the Brookings institution itself. Read the capital letters. Read those words and drill them into your brain, Joe.
Joe’s final non-point:
“Fourth, the area in question includes a number of suburbs that have completely, disastrously slummed over, in part due to the CHA’s moves.”
^ Exactly! What else do you call a town that has seen an influx of thousands of poverty-dwellers? Not exactly a yuppie enclave, I’d gather? Well duh…
What’s my point? My point is this–city or suburb, you can no longer draw clear lines and say “suburbs are for professionals and the upwardly mobile, the city is for the stranded poor”. You have no basis to say, nor have you in any way shown me any reason to believe, that Chicago’s south and west sides are failing because of people’s “aversion” to urban design guidelines. It’s a weak, baseless, even silly, argument that you’ve shown no ability to defend.
Hakim’s razor: People aren’t moving in droves to the south and west sides due to crime and gangs, and local news reports daily of a shooting “on the south side”. Seems to be the more likely explanation.
tup,
At some point you’re going to have to clarify what you think these numbers mean instead of just babbling on about how I don’t understand them.
I understand the studies game all too well. It is, again, easy to cherry-pick your comparison points (what would 2001 vs 2008 look like?) and your coverage areas (What happens if you look at rhe more relevant 5- to 9-county areas?) to arrive at an agenda-driven conclusion. And yes, Brookings can be as agenda-driven as Kotkin is.
How is Chicago helped if its poor depopulate the south side in search of what seems a better life in Harvey or Dolton? How is it helped when new Latino immigrants flock to Cicero or, Berwyn etc. in lieu of Pilsen or Little Village? Again, the list can go on.
I don’t think you have any serious grasp of the meaning of the numbers you’re citing. Poor people abandoning the city is as negative a sign for the city – if not more so – than affluent people doing the same.
Thus far your argument seems to infer: poor people, bad; rich people, good; all suburbs the same.
Added: Was saving this, but I’ll drop it on you now – from your cited article:
Or, to put it another way – again – “It’s the economy, stupid.”
“The readers can amd will judge for themselves which one of us is ducking substantive points, and which one of us has more and more accurate current knowledge of the Chicago scene.”
I just finished reading all of the comments for this article and it is clear as day that Joe was ducking most of the substantive points that TUP made. Not once did Joe give a specific, substantiate example of the mayor and/or aldermen preventing developers from creating suburban-esque developments in the city. Not to mention, even without the smoking gun provided by the Brookings article, it is pretty obvious that the city of Chicago has improved quite a bit more over the past decade, relative to the Chicago suburbs. Just ask all of the companies that have moved offices from the suburbs to the loop, over the past few years or so.
Sir Isaac,
Thanks for reminding the readers of your oft-stated biases.
And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.
“And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.”
Maybe 15 years ago. Almost every article I’ve seen mentioning a Chicagoland company moving offices in the past few years has involved the company moving offices to the city and not to the burb, led by United Airlines. Can you name any big companies that have moved from the city to the burbs, in the last 5 years?
^ Sir Isaac, Sara Lee moved to the burbs about 4 yrs ago or so.
But besides that, no. And Joe will be unable to do so either, although he will insist it’s a trend without being able to provide any specific examples–something of a habit of his lately.
I can’t think of any in the short time I’m willing to devote to it.
Job growth stats in the city and suburbs are a good proxy. The city lags badly, ans is likely to continue to do so.
According to the latest Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission forecast (spreadsheet), 80% of job growth in the Chicago metro area will occur in the suburbs.
If you go back and understand my original point about the city assembling land for development you’ll see how ridiculous it is to accuse me of failing to provide an example of suburban developers. They didn’t come to the party because the city didn’t throw one and issued no invitations.
tup,
You commented while I was writing. And you’ll continue to ignore the data I provide and misrepresent the points I make.
Joe, read your own quotes. I’m not talking about job growth. Do you think I would be so silly to think that Chicago’s job growth matches would ever match that of its suburbs? You specifically said this, and misdirected us all ( (increasingly typical from you) with your unrelated stats above:
“And anyone asking companies that have moved to the city from the suburbs can spend far more time interviewing companies who’ve moved in the opposite direction.”
^ Pardon my poor grammar above (lack of edit function. I meant to say “Do you think I would be so silly to think that Chicago’s job growth would ever match that of its suburbs?
I’ve had a sherry’s and a few beers, so I’m out of this argument for the rest of the night!!!!!
tup,
Sherry? Beer? Have some madeira, m’dear. You shouldn’t drink spirits at this time of night.
Joe, my schedule is weird. What may seem like a Monday to most workers is like Saturday to me. I have the next four days off.
Cheers!
tup,
Head on down to Chicago and I’ll buy you a nice lunch. Enjoy your time off.