Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPhi
What we have to keep in mind, and no one has addressed this here, is that gentrification, though it sucks for the individual is what keeps the city alive and social services available to the poor. So while one in poverty may have lost his or her house, he or she still gained as city-wide values rose and he or she now living further west is in a better neighborhood. And we do see increasing interest in better schools and police in poor neighborhoods. The problem is, can these end cyclical poverty and, moreover, is it the responsibility of the urbanist to respond to these problems because he or she comes to heads with it in the immanent gentrification of a growing city? Can he or she simply ignore these massive problems inherent in gentrification for someone else? I like to think that good development is that which is economically diverse. One of the benefits of a great urban vision is that the wealthy and poor are all on the same level as they navigate the streets by foot, mingling and passing as they do so. The only way to achieve this is by creating a comprehensive program of compensation for those that lose their homes and offering affordable housing in all new developments. Problems of course arise as the now gentrifying slums were undesirable in the first place because of issues like crime and safety. How do we separate the law abiding yet disadvantaged citizen from the drug dealer?
That was my rant / questioning on gentrification, I hope you've enjoyed.
|
I feel it's insane to create a program of displacement compensation. Leases have limited durations, and owners can be bought out. It is (and should be) beyond the power of American government to steal more money from taxpayers and distribute it to everyone who is a "victim" of the terms to which they are contractually bound.
Now, eminent domain is another thing altogether. Somebody mentioned Little Italy and Maxwell St as examples of gentrification during that annoying fight about Logan Square. That is not an example to be held up. That's the quintessential example of Chicago political corruption and lucrative kickbacks through eminent domain threats to the benefit of cozied up private developers.
That would be a matter of social justice to be remedied by the courts. It'd be akin to the city condemning the properties around Logan Square, the state seizing them with eminent domain, and private developers using the land to replace all the current buildings with ten story condo buildings.
I do not think it's for benevolent planners to continue to try to and fail to eradicate poverty, especially by doing things like mandating affordable housing ratios. We again see the results of this near Maxwell, where those occupying the affordable units are not truly needy, and even these people simply sell their units to the wealthy and move somewhere else. It's token politics. All this does is add another cost on to development, lowering the breadth of possible profitable ventures and decreasing the allowable optional expenses, such as quality of construction.
Further, I don't think it's true anymore that gentrification helps the poor overall, because the roll of neighborhood organizations and fraternal organizations has been replaced by state and federal welfare and healthcare programs. The aggregate wealth of the state and nation is therefore more relevant now than the aggregate wealth of the city. The neighborhoods may increase the latter but Illinois' and America's wealth are in demonstrable decline. Schools and police are important, but primarily as responses to symptoms, not causes. Further, is Chicago's wealth increasing? I think not. We're 200K down in the last decade, and while Logan Square may increase in wealth, Englewood finishes hollowing out, Chatham is threatened with displaced CHA violence, Auburn Gresham struggles to keep its head above water, and N Lawndale awaits hispanics pushing passed Ogden. Etc, etc, etc.
Your last question is exactly the synopsis of the problem with public solutions to society's rather private problems. Knowledge and wisdom cannot be infinite and therefore the planners cannot know the answers to these crucial questions -- answers which would be inherent in the imaginary success of such foolhardy schemes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiPhi
Sounds like the worst of the city and the suburbs to me, but maybe it will be redeveloped some day.
I've always felt that the strange and sudden drop off south of the loop is crazy and, especially from the top of the sears, it looks ridiculous. We need to get more serious about building up the Sloop as a real alternative to River North (ie, tell AMLI to add more density and retail to their newest property). Eventually, we may even see something like the Park Michigan (to balance out the skyline behind Grant Park) or businesses moving south of Congress. South of congress seems more if not just as convenient as crossing a river from the major train artery stops (Oglvie, Union etc.).
If this happens, Hyde Park will no longer be a U of C fueled oasis of gentrification on the south side and we may see other neighborhoods follow suit as real urbanism (or at least gentrification/ improvements) spreads south and north from these two neighborhoods.
|
Pardon me, but the near South and near North were similarly dense at one point. The drop off may be sudden, but it isn't magical. There's a reason. The black belt was among the densest areas in the city. The area on State S of Roosevelt was a black downtown. 22nd had midrise hotels and dense tenement buildings near Michigan and State. The area S of that around 24th and that area displaced by the start of the Stevenson and the urban renewal just to the S of it was once a large, dense hospital district, and a center for fraternal and social organizations. The Prairie Ave district extended all the way down South, but paths of density cut across it at 31st, 35th, 43rd, ad so on. The apartments on the South are quite dense compared to much of pre-1940 Chicago, and those cross streets I just mentioned once included midrises approaching 10 stories, especially at 31st and 35th before IIT and Michael Reese carpet bombed all of it.
The reason this doesn't exist anymore is government central planning. From highways to urban renewal projects that cover most of the near South to extensive, pervasive public housing, most of the density was destroyed from the top down. Public housing killed the black downtowns on S State and 47th. There was a lot to destroy, but the government was remarkably effective.
So it's not strange. It's intentional. Get mad about it.
A source for some of this info:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/4902308...7624762439520/
Check out 31st/Groveland, for example, or most all of those over photos.
Behold in those pictures the market's method of housing the poor. Truly the ghettos these buildings would become are wholly different than the ghettos the planners create. Which is more hopeless? Maybe take a gander at photos of 47th or 35th in the 30s and 40s, and decide for yourself.
As to the South loop, that was all railroad land, except around between Michigan to State. So that's a pretty good reason.
Prev
!!!
I wonder how much pressure that will create to build towers in the area around rainforest cafe and mcdonalds? 
Linear Mode
