Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
...
I'm not sure this is something to celebrate, either. The density of Pilsen enables one of the city's most vibrant street life, with hundreds of independent businesses. That vibrancy, plus the contiguous urban fabric and good architecture, is what attracts wealthier people to Pilsen, but wealthier people aren't living with 5 people in a 2-bedroom apartment and so they will decrease the density and eventually kill the street life.
|
There will be a reduction of density, at least at first, but street life will not necessarily decline. First, part of Pilsen's density is children. Children don't add much to street life, even in Pilsen. Parents go out less (in general). And gentrifiers tend to have more money. There will be some instability as it transitions, laundromats will be lost, grocery stores will changes, restaurants will change, dollar stores will disappear. But with the influx of new money, empty lots will get built on eventually. Run-down places will be replaced with larger building. A single family home with 8 people might get replaced with a 4-flat with 8 people, for example. With any luck, the City gets savvy about TOD before this happens, so denser buildings will get built to offset the reduction in density in existing buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality
There is still the South Loop to develop... Riverside, Harold Ickes, and South Loop Gateway could probably absorb 20 years of growth by themselves.
Then once you cross the Stevenson you have Prairie Shores/Lake Meadows/Reese sitting on 200 lakefront acres within three miles of State/Madison.
As you mentioned earlier, Chicago has a ton of land. Its capacity is as close to infinite as you can find.
|
Chicago could add 2 million people and still only be slightly more dense than Queens overall. It would have to add nearly 5 million people to achieve an overall density comparable to Brooklyn. And there's plenty of land to do that, though not really the zoning currently (nor the demographic trends).
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
^ Right now Pilsen has a good number of vacant buildings, though.
Gentrification can only increase density in Pilsen. And from my observation, a pretty good amount of investment is going into the area.
The questions is whether Pilsen will take the "next step" toward gentrification which leads to lower densities.
Here is my rather quickly and un-scientifically scrapped together list of the step by step process of gentrification:
Phase I: empty buildings get renovated: density goes up
Phase II: rents go up and so groups of people pile into each apartment: density goes up
Phase III: condo conversion and demo/replace with SFH & townhomes: density goes down
Phase IV: after Phase III is fully completed, overwhelmingly high land prices and demand lead eventually to some new development: density goes up
|
Phase 2 doesn't really happen that way. When rents go up, it's because it's popular. That draws people who can afford to spend more. People who can't afford to stay are more likely to move than to add roommates, since they probably already live as densely as they feel tolerant to - your version would only really happen in geographically constrained areas with no comparable locations in close proximity. That doesn't describe Pilsen. And Phase 1 is often accompanied by landlords forcing out tenants to do renovations that immediately reduce the numbers in the buildings because they can make more, with less risk and less cost, renting to wealthier new residents.
Prev
Linear Mode
