Chicago community area populations 1950 vs. 2010

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by 10023

And something you do notice in New York, not to sound like a traitor to where I grew up, but the whole city just seems healthier than cities in the Midwest. Obviously places like Detroit and Cleveland are much maligned, but as shown in this thread there are even vast swaths of Chicago that are empty, beaten down, crumbling, with little hope of recovery in the foreseeable future. There are big swaths of the city with a generally "run down" feel. That doesn't exist to any great extent in New York. Even NYC's low income neighborhoods are hubs of economic activity by comparison.

No offense taken and I have noticed the same thing. I have been to New York City but have only walked around Manhattan and inner Brooklyn, the rest I have learned about from spending time on google street view. I actually try to find bombed out neighborhoods in NYC and really haven't found any, at least anything to the extent you find in Chicago. Even someone like me who tends to be a glass is half full optimistic urbanist is shocked at how healthy even the most random NYC neighborhoods look. I don't think it is a midwestern vs. east coast thing though because Philadelphia, Baltimore and D.C. still have bombed out areas; it is the simple fact that NYC seems more and more like an exception to all other older urban cities in the USA. I do agree though that second and third tier midwestern cities (plus Pittsburgh and Buffalo) seem to look the most rundown.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

And I would say SF has surged in affluence and continues to pack more people in so maybe that is a better comparison.

Right, but how is SF a good comparison to the entire city of Chicago? SF is more compariable to the central area and north lakefront of Chicago. If you cut that portion of Chicago out and made it its own city, it would have demographics that are highly favorable and growing (the white hot growth of Chicago's central area would probably make up for losses through gentrification in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc) just like SF.

I mean, SF proper has only 5% of its population being African American, and 15% Hispanic. It is an island of wealth, just a puny hypergentrified portion of its metropolitan area. The entire city of Chicago on the other hand is roughly 1/3 Hispanic, 1/3 black, and carries about 30% of the metropolitan area's population.

Instead of focusing on which municipal boundaries contain which kinds of statistics, it is better to compare metro population trends. That is really the only fair measurement of a region's population growth and health.

And using that measure, metro Chicago actually did even better than metro NY from 2000-2010, looking at percentage growth. Of course I am not satisfied with that--I would love to see the center city perform better than it did, but unfortunately previously chosen municipal boundaries have lumped many of the population-losing areas within the city proper.

[Chase Unperson]

I know this is going to be pointless....

But the facts remain the same. "hypergentrified" San Francisco is packing them in even more densely while "gentfied" Lincoln Park, Lakeview and quite a bit of the northside are down considerably from 1950. I was actually kind of shocked to see that. So gentrification in SF results in denser neighborhoods while genetrification in Chicago results in less dense neighborhoods. Why is that? And it wasn't always a island of wealth. I bet in 1950-1970, socioecnomically it was probably not dramatically dissimilar to Chicago.

See if you can cut out a 47 square miles of Chicago that have genetrified and would be at an all time high for population. Judging from that map, I don't know if you could.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Right, but how is SF a good comparison to the entire city of Chicago? SF is more compariable to the central area and north lakefront of Chicago. If you cut that portion of Chicago out and made it its own city, it would have demographics that are highly favorable and growing (the white hot growth of Chicago's central area would probably make up for losses through gentrification in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc) just like SF.

I mean, SF proper has only 5% of its population being African American, and 15% Hispanic. It is an island of wealth, just a puny hypergentrified portion of its metropolitan area. The entire city of Chicago on the other hand is roughly 1/3 Hispanic, 1/3 black, and carries about 30% of the metropolitan area's population.

Instead of focusing on which municipal boundaries contain which kinds of statistics, it is better to compare metro population trends. That is really the only fair measurement of a region's population growth and health.

And using that measure, metro Chicago actually did even better than metro NY from 2000-2010, looking at percentage growth. Of course I am not satisfied with that--I would love to see the center city perform better than it did, but unfortunately previously chosen municipal boundaries have lumped many of the population-losing areas within the city proper.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by nei

I'd guess that makes a big difference.



Don't know as much about Chicago public housing, but currently public housing projects have very low median incomes; checking a map, census tracts composed mainly of public housing have median incomes $15-19k/year. Turning the worst times of the South Bronx's decay, the projects were probably preferable to market housing and in better condition.



Few white transplants move, if that's what you mean by transplants. It's still has plenty of quality of life issues, but I'm not familiar with Englewood and Lawndale to make comparisons. The South Bronx gets a lot of transplants if Latin American immigrants count. Checking the demographics of Englewood, it's very different from the South Bronx, which is majority hispanic. As the part of the city with the cheapest rent, it also got people who couldn't afford elsewhere and became a bit of a dumping round for Section 8 tenants. Here's population numbers for two hard-hit South Bronx neighborhoods:

Bronx District 1 (Melrose/Mott Haven):

1970: 138,557
1980: 78,441 -43%
1990: 77,214 -2%
2000: 82,159 +6%
2010: 91,497 +11%

Area is 2.2 square miles

Community District 3 (Morsiania, Croton Park East)

1970: 150,636
1980: 53,635 -64%
1990: 57,162 +7%
2000: 68,574 +20%
2010: 79,762 +16%

Area is 1.6 square miles

So, the South Bronx had more decline at once than Chicago but then grew back somewhat. The growth since 1990 has been all from an increase in the hispanic population, black population is stable and white population is negligible. Pre-white flight, the neighborhood was heavily Jewish.




From views I've seen, CHA high-rises often didn't seem surrounded by much, but that may be because of decay (?) NYC has a number of projects next to rich blocks, mostly in Manhattan. Usually, but not always it's because of gentrification. The most extreme one I've found is the Alfred E. Smith Houses (unusually for projects, it has an Asian majority) at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge, a short walk away is a Tribeca census tract with a median income of $210k / year, about 15x higher.

Someone earning minimum wage in New York (shockingly the same as federal, $7.25 an hour) 40 hours a week year round would earn $15K, so $15-20K as the average in the projects would include many of the low wage working poor in NYC. Contrast that with what wikipedia says about the Robert Taylor homes: Six of the poorest US census areas with populations above 2,500 were found there. Including children who are not of working age, at one point 95 percent of the housing development's 27,000 residents were unemployed and listed public assistance as their only income source,[4] and 40 percent of the households were single-parent, female-headed households earning less than $5,000 per year. About 96 percent were African-American. Granted the above stats are probably from the 1990's or early 2000's at the latest but even so that is quite different from people earning $15-20K a year many likely from employment of some kind. I mean I have no doubt that many of NYC's welfare addicts live in projects but it is not a welfare ghetto like Chicago's projects were. In general anyone working in Chicago, even at minimum wage should be able to avoid living in the projects.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

I know this is going to be pointless....

But the facts remain the same. "hypergentrified" San Francisco is packing them in even more densely while "gentfied" Lincoln Park, Lakeview and quite a bit of the northside are down considerably from 1950. I was actually kind of shocked to see that. So gentrification in SF results in denser neighborhoods while genetrification in Chicago results in less dense neighborhoods. Why is that? And it wasn't always a island of wealth. I bet in 1950-1970, socioecnomically it was probably not dramatically dissimilar to Chicago.

See if you can cut out a 47 square miles of Chicago that have genetrified and would be at an all time high for population. Judging from that map, I don't know if you could.

^ Now that you put it this way, I can see your point, but I guess I'm not as surprised as you because I can see what is happening (at least in Chicago) on the ground.

The vast majority of really dense development is occurring in the city's core. We are, after all, talking about hundreds of new skyscrapers which are almost entirely residential. And due to NIMBYism in the neighborhoods, almost all of this type of development has occurred entirely downtown.

NIMBYism in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc is so irritatingly bad that very little dense development has occurred in these areas. In fact, it made more sense for private investors to either tear down 2-3 story buildings and replace them with million dollar townhomes/homes or just renovate and deconvert into less dense structures.

I guess a different process is occurring in San Francisco, that's all, but I'm not an expert enough "on the ground" over there to know what it is. Perhaps somebody else can answer that question?

So gentrification in SF results in denser neighborhoods while genetrification in Chicago results in less dense neighborhoods

^ This is the only part of your post I'm not sure I agree with. It all depends on what type of gentrification you are witnessing. If it is the type above that I described in Lincoln Park, then yes, you'll see lower density. But of course, if you are replacing small commercial storefronts or parking lots downtown with residential highrises, then you'll obviously see higher densities. Chicago seems to be undergoing both processes at the same time.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

I know this is going to be pointless....

But the facts remain the same. "hypergentrified" San Francisco is packing them in even more densely while "gentfied" Lincoln Park, Lakeview and quite a bit of the northside are down considerably from 1950. I was actually kind of shocked to see that. So gentrification in SF results in denser neighborhoods while genetrification in Chicago results in less dense neighborhoods. Why is that? And it wasn't always a island of wealth. I bet in 1950-1970, socioecnomically it was probably not dramatically dissimilar to Chicago.

See if you can cut out a 47 square miles of Chicago that have genetrified and would be at an all time high for population. Judging from that map, I don't know if you could.

Its not that simple though, Lakeview has been gentrified since the 90's, yet gained people, but Lincoln Park didn't. Uptown, Rogers Park, West Town lost, yet the Near North Side gained a lot. Maybe its a cycle: neighborhoods lose in the initial stages of gentrification, stable off until its completely built out, then demand increases again, population rises?

Where were SF's largest population gains?

[nei]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I don't think it is a midwestern vs. east coast thing though because Philadelphia, Baltimore and D.C. still have bombed out areas; it is the simple fact that NYC seems more and more like an exception to all other older urban cities in the USA. I do agree though that second and third tier midwestern cities (plus Pittsburgh and Buffalo) seem to look the most rundown.

New England seems to be free of bombed out areas. Some older cities are rather poor, but there's not much obvious decay. The decay in Philadelphia seems to have less of the "urban prairie" that I've seen of some views of Chicago

[nei]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Someone earning minimum wage in New York (shockingly the same as federal, $7.25 an hour) 40 hours a week year round would earn $15K, so $15-20K as the average in the projects would include many of the low wage working poor in NYC. Contrast that with what wikipedia says about the Robert Taylor homes: Six of the poorest US census areas with populations above 2,500 were found there. Including children who are not of working age, at one point 95 percent of the housing development's 27,000 residents were unemployed and listed public assistance as their only income source,[4] and 40 percent of the households were single-parent, female-headed households earning less than $5,000 per year. About 96 percent were African-American. Granted the above stats are probably from the 1990's or early 2000's at the latest but even so that is quite different from people earning $15-20K a year many likely from employment of some kind. I mean I have no doubt that many of NYC's welfare addicts live in projects but it is not a welfare ghetto like Chicago's projects were. In general anyone working in Chicago, even at minimum wage should be able to avoid living in the projects.

I didn't remember the stats of the Robert Taylor Homes, though perhaps it was worse than average for the CHA. For the NYCHA:

Average family income in Conventional Public Housing is $22,824
Average monthly rent is $434
Working families account for 47.2% of NYCHA families
36.7% of the households are headed by persons over 62 years-of-age

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/a...actsheet.shtml

The average would be lower if it were a median. So yes, it's not all welfare addicts, but it's still a very poor population.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

So gentrification in SF results in denser neighborhoods while genetrification in Chicago results in less dense neighborhoods. Why is that? And it wasn't always a island of wealth. I bet in 1950-1970, socioecnomically it was probably not dramatically dissimilar to Chicago.

San Francisco wasn't an island of wealth back then, but I think it was less gritty and less working-class than most northern industrial cities. Was better educated, too. I suspect, there was less of a density transformation as there was less to gentrify in San Francisco. This is a good data source:

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1960.html

Scroll down to 1960 Census of Population and Housing under Series PHC(1). Census Tracts each part gives you a detail breakdown of demographics by city, county and census tract (census tract is too much detail unless you have a specific interest). It's organized alphabetically by metro.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

I don't think it is a midwestern vs. east coast thing though because Philadelphia, Baltimore and D.C. still have bombed out areas; it is the simple fact that NYC seems more and more like an exception to all other older urban cities in the USA..

Don't forget Trenton and Camden and Newark, etc.

Originally Posted by nei

New England seems to be free of bombed out areas. Some older cities are rather poor, but there's not much obvious decay. The decay in Philadelphia seems to have less of the "urban prairie" that I've seen of some views of Chicago

New England is definitely not free from obvious decay. It's just that most people forget New England has cities outside Boston. Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Providence, and Springfield have considerable (and noticeable) blight.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

New England is definitely not free from obvious decay. It's just that most people forget New England has cities outside Boston. Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, Providence, and Springfield have considerable (and noticeable) blight.

I've been through Springfield and Hartford several times. They're still to the level as some mid-Atlantic or Midwestern cities. It's abandoned houses here and there in the worst neighborhoods, not a whole blocks' worth of abandonment or urban prairies.

The largest population loss of any town in New England looks to be North Adams (-43% but over 110 years), for New Jersey, Hoboken (-53% from 1910 to 1990 though it has partially recovered).

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by 10023

What Chicago (and other cities need) is that kind of Victorian era development where someone came in and built a whole neighborhood of rowhouses or terrace houses or whatever (like Brooklyn, much of London, etc). It's not much different than today's greenfield subdivisions really, except denser and much better build quality.

That's a much faster way to revitalize those bombed out neighborhoods that actually have sought after locations (near transit, etc), as it doesn't require people to be "pioneers" in a dangerous area. Of course the question is whether developers would be interested and what happens to the existing residents.

I would imagine that the biggest problem with such developments would be acquiring the land. Unless you are purchasing from the city, or have somehow found a way to wrestle property away from the CHA, you are likely dealing with dozens of property owners, all of whom will want top dollar once they realize you are buying up the entire block for a development.

It was a lot easier in the 19th century when developers were buying from large land owners, or the government.

Aside from CHA (who owns tons of this sort of land, but has no idea whatsoever of how to develop property) the best bet seems to purchase former industrial sites or residential superblocks and redevelop them.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by nei

I've been through Springfield and Hartford several times. They're still to the level as some mid-Atlantic or Midwestern cities. It's abandoned houses here and there in the worst neighborhoods, not a whole blocks' worth of abandonment or urban prairies.

I lived in New Haven for 4+ years and am pretty familiar with New England's seedy underbelly. Whole factories stand vacant. The worst neighborhoods are more than abandoned houses: those that are still standing are rotted and in various states of disrepair, the yards are covered in weeds and litter and all manners of urban jetsam, they host generations of poverty. Other neighborhoods were completely bulldozed over in some of the pound-for-pound most devastating cases of urban renewal the country has seen.

It's a popular misconception that the Northeast/New England is free from Rust Belt–style blight. I think the runaway success of Boston and New York (and more recently Washington) blinds people to it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I lived in New Haven for 4+ years and am pretty familiar with New England's seedy underbelly. Whole factories stand vacant. The worst neighborhoods are more than abandoned houses: those that are still standing are rotted and in various states of disrepair, the yards are covered in weeds and litter and all manners of urban jetsam, they host generations of poverty. Other neighborhoods were completely bulldozed over in some of the pound-for-pound most devastating cases of urban renewal the country has seen.

It's a popular misconception that the Northeast/New England is free from Rust Belt–style blight. I think the runaway success of Boston and New York (and more recently Washington) blinds people to it.

^ I think this was the point I was trying to make to Chase Unperson above, and I need to emphasize this.

Chicago has this degree of poverty and abandonment in areas within the city limits. That is what often "drags down" the city's demographic numbers in a way that isn't seen in other cities named, such as NYC, Bay Area, etc. That's why it is better to look at entire metro data instead of data from just within city limits.

Having said that, I do agree that the inability of areas like Bronzeville & Pilsen to have become very desirable and seen drastic new development is concerning. In NYC or SF areas so close to the cores of these metros would have become prime real estate, but they continue to sit stagnant here in Chicago.

[10023]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I would imagine that the biggest problem with such developments would be acquiring the land. Unless you are purchasing from the city, or have somehow found a way to wrestle property away from the CHA, you are likely dealing with dozens of property owners, all of whom will want top dollar once they realize you are buying up the entire block for a development.

It was a lot easier in the 19th century when developers were buying from large land owners, or the government.

Aside from CHA (who owns tons of this sort of land, but has no idea whatsoever of how to develop property) the best bet seems to purchase former industrial sites or residential superblocks and redevelop them.

I totally agree. That's a big part of why we can't get decent high speed rail in the country either, even in the Northeast. Amtrak just can't acquire the right of way to build dedicated track. Making it easier for the government to claim eminent domain would help solve a lot of urban issues, but goes against American beliefs with respect to private property rights.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Having said that, I do agree that the inability of areas like Bronzeville & Pilsen to have become very desirable and seen drastic new development is concerning. In NYC or SF areas so close to the cores of these metros would have become prime real estate, but they continue to sit stagnant here in Chicago.

Any chance geography plays some role? Chicago is a big, flat, boring grid with no geographical "borders" aside from the lake. I wonder how much that contributes to people figuring they might as well move a few miles further west to the suburbs if they're not going to be near the lake anyway. I could say for myself that I'd much rather live in suburban Lake County near the Metra than anywhere on the West Side, because there's just no draw away from the lake and I find endless straight roads with no urban streetwall kind of unsettling. Even in Queens, the fact that there's some topography makes neighborhoods even far from Midtown feel more unique.

And you can't ignore the importance of "good bones", either. Brooklyn's brownstone neighborhoods are just really beautiful, human-scale, with lots of trees. It shouldn't be any surprise that Park Slope gentrified to such a degree when it's probably a more aesthetically attractive neighborhood than any in Chicago beyond the Gold Coast and Lincoln Park.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I would imagine that the biggest problem with such developments would be acquiring the land. Unless you are purchasing from the city, or have somehow found a way to wrestle property away from the CHA, you are likely dealing with dozens of property owners, all of whom will want top dollar once they realize you are buying up the entire block for a development.

It was a lot easier in the 19th century when developers were buying from large land owners, or the government.

Aside from CHA (who owns tons of this sort of land, but has no idea whatsoever of how to develop property) the best bet seems to purchase former industrial sites or residential superblocks and redevelop them.

^ Just curious, how did the CHA originally acquire their land? Didn't they also have to buy it from numerous smaller property owners?

[Segun]

Originally Posted by 10023

I totally agree. That's a big part of why we can't get decent high speed rail in the country either, even in the Northeast. Amtrak just can't acquire the right of way to build dedicated track. Making it easier for the government to claim eminent domain would help solve a lot of urban issues, but goes against American beliefs with respect to private property rights.


Any chance geography plays some role? Chicago is a big, flat, boring grid with no geographical "borders" aside from the lake. I wonder how much that contributes to people figuring they might as well move a few miles further west to the suburbs if they're not going to be near the lake anyway. I could say for myself that I'd much rather live in suburban Lake County near the Metra than anywhere on the West Side, because there's just no draw away from the lake and I find endless straight roads with no urban streetwall kind of unsettling. Even in Queens, the fact that there's some topography makes neighborhoods even far from Midtown feel more unique.

And you can't ignore the importance of "good bones", either. Brooklyn's brownstone neighborhoods are just really beautiful, human-scale, with lots of trees. It shouldn't be any surprise that Park Slope gentrified to such a degree when it's probably a more aesthetically attractive neighborhood than any in Chicago beyond the Gold Coast and Lincoln Park.

I think the ongoing gentrification of Logan Square and Humboldt park proves that people have no qualms living far west from the lake.

Bronzeville has architecture thats as beautiful as Park Slope, and Pilsen has a unique character for Chicago (and anywhere else in the US for that matter) Geography does play a part, but not in the way you mentioned. The problem is that those two neighborhoods are geographically close to downtown, but psychologically, they're islands. Until they're connected to downtown with seamless development (which is a task considering the amount of former/current industrial space seperating it), better transit, and the South Side loses its stigma, they might as well be in other cities. Its not unique to Chicago, East LA has a similar set of hurdles. But, Pilsen is slowly gentrifying, along with Bridgeport.

*Seperate note* For the last time, Lakeview GAINED population the last census period!

[tech12]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

.

I mean, SF proper has only 5% of its population being African American, and 15% Hispanic. It is an island of wealth, just a puny hypergentrified portion of its metropolitan area. The entire city of Chicago on the other hand is roughly 1/3 Hispanic, 1/3 black, and carries about 30% of the metropolitan area's population.

So are you basically lumping all of SF's white and Asian people into one giant group of "hyper gentrifyers" or something?

You have a pretty simplistic view of San Francisco that seems to have been filtered through a bunch of stereotypes. San Francisco is not a "hypergentrified, island of wealth", as you claim (not yet, at least). Most residents here are middle class, and there is a sizable lower class as well (and 12% of the city lives under the poverty line, which is higher than it was in 2000, and almost equal to what it was in 1990). There are lots of poor Asian people and white people in San Francisco too, I don't know why you only singled out black and latino people when referring to the non-gentrification crowd. As for SF being a "puny" portion of the metropolitan area, it's no more puny than Boston or Washington DC in that regard (in fact, it's less so). And for the record, SF's latino population is growing, as it has been for the past 6 decades straight, just as SF's Asian population has been growing (while the black and white population have dropped pretty much non-stop for decades on end). Immigration from Asia and Latin America has been the largest contributor to SF's population growth over the past few decades, not gentrification. If it were not for immigration, SF would not have reached all-time high population levels in 2000 and 2010.

SF demographics:

white population:
1970: 511,186 (71.4%)
1980: 402,131 (59.2%)
1990: 388,341 (53.6%)
2000: 385,728 (49.7%) (338,909 white alone/43.6%)
2010: 390,387 (48.5%) (337,451 white alone/41.9%)

black population :
1970: 96,078 (13.4%)
1980: 86,190 (12.7%)
1990: 78,931 (10.9%)
2000: 60,515 (7.8%) (58,791 black alone/7.6%)
2010: 48,870 (6.1%) (46,781 black alone/5.8%)

asian population:
1970: 95,095 (13.3%)
1980: 149,269 (22.0%)
1990: 211,000 (29.1%)
2000: 239,565 (30.8%) (238,173 Asian alone/30.7%)
2010: 267,915 (33.3%) (265,700 Asian alone/33.0%)

latino of any race population:
1970: 69,633 (9.7%)
1980: 84,194 (12.4%)
1990: 96,640 (13.3%)
2000: 109,504 (14.1%)
2010: 121,774 (15.1%)

other population (this mostly includes latino people it seems):
1970: 10,415 (1.5%)
1980: 37,818 (5.6%)
1990: 42,333 (5.8%)
2000: 50,365 (6.5%)
2010: 53,021 (6.6%)

mixed race population:
2000: 33,255 (4.3%)
2010: 37,659 (4.7%)

[LouisVanDerWright]

There is a lot of head scratching going on in this thread over things that are seemingly obvious to me. For example:

"Why have Chicago neighborhoods lost density even while gentrifying?"

Seems pretty obvious that this is because Chicago was massively dense at it's peak and it's pretty difficult to take a neighborhood like Rogers Park and make it somehow "more dense". Where are they going to build? How are you going to build something more dense than endless blocks of 4+1's and tenements? It's just not going to happen.

Also, as user 10023 pointed out, geography has a huge role in it. The fact is that Chicago has probably the biggest supply of buildable land out of any city on earth. It literally sits on an effectively endless plain of perfectly flat uniform land. Land values in Chicago will always be among the lowest in the world for a city of its size just because it only has one geographic constraint: the lake. There isn't even a single hill in this city that requires so much as a single story change in grade from one side of a block to another.

"How did the CHA get it's land?"

Well that's very obvious, eminent domain. They said "now this is our land, here is some money" and were done with it.

"Why are some neighborhoods in Chicago taking so much longer to redevelop?"

It's again a geography thing. Why push into a somewhat seedy area that is 10 minutes from downtown when Logan Square (and a half dozen other appealing areas on the north side including Albany Park, Avondale, Humboldt Park, etc.) aren't even close to being full yet? Pilsen is starting to gentrify, but that's because there is actually something to attract people down there namely the IMD and UIC. Bronzeville would be more puzzling considering IIT is there, but IIT is largely a commuter school so it doesn't have the same effect as some Universities like U of C, Loyola, and to a larger and larger extent, UIC and the South Loop universities on the surrounding neighborhood. Also, Bronzeville has the problem of massive over supply of land that will take a while to pare down to the point where new development becomes sufficiently attractive.



Really though, the most fundamental point I am making is that Chicago is geographically unlike any other city being mentioned here. Why on earth would you live in a tiny ass 750 SF 2BR apartment 30 minutes from downtown as my cousin who lives in Brooklyn does when you could live in a 2500 SF house that is 15 min from downtown and half as expensive as I do? There simply is too much land to drive the construction of ultra dense developments in Chicago. That may change with time (for example once most of the vacant lots in and around downtown are gone in 20-30 years), but it will be the reality for the near term.

Then there is the relatively liberal zoning climate in Chicago where you can basically build as high as you please downtown. Imagine if the whole city had a West-Loop style height restriction, downtown would already be solid 12 story buildings from North Ave to Roosevelt and the River to the lake. The ease of zoning in downtown only further depresses land values in the periphery by allowing downtown to go up just as fast as it goes out.

That really is my favorite question to ask; at the rate we've been building since 2002, there isn't going to be any space left East of Michigan Ave by 2020 (if not sooner). There will be limited space left East of the River by 2020 and probably no space left East of the river by 2030. What happens when Cabrini fills in and River North is built out? That is when I think we will see massive growth in the neighborhoods and it is probably 20 years if not more out.

It is encouraging to see the recent spate of neighborhood towers (and other developments) and that is a sign that downtown is much less "empty" than it once was. I was driving down Armitage in Bucktown and Logan Square the other day and saw probably half a dozen 6-12 unit buildings under construction which is another good sign. I just don't think we will see a flood outwards into the neighborhoods until places like River North are bursting at the seams.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by nei

I didn't remember the stats of the Robert Taylor Homes, though perhaps it was worse than average for the CHA. For the NYCHA:

Average family income in Conventional Public Housing is $22,824
Average monthly rent is $434
Working families account for 47.2% of NYCHA families
36.7% of the households are headed by persons over 62 years-of-age

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/a...actsheet.shtml

The average would be lower if it were a median. So yes, it's not all welfare addicts, but it's still a very poor population.

Yes it is poor by the standards of any educated and/or at least middle class person but still nearly 50% of families employed and a good percentage of the others being senior citizens likely retired and/or living off social security is a pretty decent mix and arguably it gives the welfare addicts someone to look up to and incentive to improve their lives. In Chicago there are basically only two types, welfare addicts and poor senior citizens, the latter usually living in designated senior housing so the welfare addicts are totally isolated in their own ghetto projects. Chicago just had a massive tear down of it's high rise projects whereas in NYC most of them are still standing and in at least working order, I think we both agree on why this is so.