I recently returned from Queens, NY where I was visiting a friend, and I got to thinking about Chicago:

Do Chicagoans tend to forget about the city outside of the "central core"? For arguments sake, lets call the central core South: Roosevelt; North: Armitage; East: Lake; West: I90/94.
When Chicagoans (or anybody else) talk about how great our city is, they tend to mean "downtown", but leave the core and the city is very different. Tons of Parking lots, strip malls, and many low density hoods; of course i dont mean the whole city, but a large portion of the south and west sides are like this.

Chicago is a city of aprox. 230 sq. miles, while we tend to focus on about a total of 15 or 20 sq. miles. I brought up Queens because most of the borough is a thriving city, same goes with Brooklyn. In fact, Queens and Brooklyn are almost both equal to Chicago in Population.
I dont mean to compare Chicago to NYC (not really apples to apples), but Boston is the same way, San Fran, and even LA.

I would like to hear everybodys thoughts :)

I appologize if this doesn't make much sense, im sitting at O'hare typing this (my flights delayed) :bash:

interesting question.

first, i think there is a fundamental difference between Chicago and both New York and LA. Think of it this way: Chicago is the largest city in the nation where all people share city and state in their postal address: the whole city is "Chicago, Illinois". That's fairly significant. In New York, Manhattan is the city. Brooklyn still has the trappings of being the other city it once was. Queens is made up of villages that coalesced into a more solid whole. Staten Island is issolated from all. Only the Bronx seems like a true extension of Manhattan. IN LA, mountains separate the city from the valley while the far off harbor is set apart and connected by a thin thread heading southward.

Chicago differs: from downtown to city limits, the whole place functions as one. The divisions are not that pronounced.

That said, the outer ring of the city is of more local interest than being a shared experience for the whole city.

I'd look at this way: Chicago's concentric rings go something like this:

the greater downtown area
the areas both north, south, and west of it that relate to it
the outer ring of city neighborhoods, residential and without the city "buzz"
inner ring suburbs
outer ring suburbs
exurbia

The first two zones, downtown and the related areas north, south, and west, are the real public Chicago. The far north, west, and south sides, in some respects, are no more "public" than the suburbs they abut.

I hate how Chicago has neglected most of its south and west sides. I'll never understand that. Totally blown opportunity.

Chicago needs its own version of a Queens.

I think on this forum the rest of the city is forgotten, but I certainly don't think most Chicagoans think that at all. I grew up there and lived there until I was 21. Downtown was a place you took tourists or went for a Bears game. All other times it was just some traffic to get through if your destination was on the other side of it. But this is a skyscraper forum, so of course the focus will be on downtown here.

I think on this forum the rest of the city is forgotten.

I disagree. There are a good number of us, including myself, that continue to preach that there is much more to Chicago than the Loop, Navy Pier, and the Mag Mile. I have repeated this in many threads: Chicago is all about the neighborhoods. Downtown Chicago honestly isn't as good as some other cities I have been too: Seattle, Boston, NYC to name a few. What I love about Chicago (and what I think it's slightly losing in the wake of all of this redevelopment and gentrification) is the vibrancy of all of the different neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves...those really make Chicago what it is, whether it's the Polish corridor on N Milwaukee, the blue collar attitude down in Bridgeport, the Mexican port of entry Pilsen, Korean town up on Argyle, Chinatown, Uptown with it's total mix of people, Wicker Park's artsy scene, Bronzeville's African history, etc etc.

The Loop is great for what it is: a tourist attraction and business center. When I am in Chicago, unless I am going to work or a big event like the Taste or Blues Fest or something, I rarely meander around the Loop. Whenever people (tourists) ask me what to do or where to go in Chicago, I try to point them to some non-touristy or at least non-Loop activities, whether its Indian food up on Devon, Frank Lloyd Wright tour in Oak Park, or "Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" comedy sketch in Uptown. I rarely say "hey, you should check out the Picasso!" or "you know, Navy Pier is a pretty cool place to go"...because I really don't think it is. So no, I don't think the rest of the city is forgotten, it's just not as cool to show in photos...I mean the Hyde Park skyline isn't nearly as impressive as the Loop-Gold Coast-South Loop skyline.

I disagree. There are a good number of us, including myself, that continue to preach that there is much more to Chicago than the Loop, Navy Pier, and the Mag Mile. I have repeated this in many threads: Chicago is all about the neighborhoods. Downtown Chicago honestly isn't as good as some other cities I have been too: Seattle, Boston, NYC to name a few. What I love about Chicago (and what I think it's slightly losing in the wake of all of this redevelopment and gentrification) is the vibrancy of all of the different neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves...those really make Chicago what it is, whether it's the Polish corridor on N Milwaukee, the blue collar attitude down in Bridgeport, the Mexican port of entry Pilsen, Korean town up on Argyle, Chinatown, Uptown with it's total mix of people, Wicker Park's artsy scene, Bronzeville's African history, etc etc.

The Loop is great for what it is: a tourist attraction and business center. When I am in Chicago, unless I am going to work or a big event like the Taste or Blues Fest or something, I rarely meander around the Loop. Whenever people (tourists) ask me what to do or where to go in Chicago, I try to point them to some non-touristy or at least non-Loop activities, whether its Indian food up on Devon, Frank Lloyd Wright tour in Oak Park, or "Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind" comedy sketch in Uptown. I rarely say "hey, you should check out the Picasso!" or "you know, Navy Pier is a pretty cool place to go"...because I really don't think it is. So no, I don't think the rest of the city is forgotten, it's just not as cool to show in photos...I mean the Hyde Park skyline isn't nearly as impressive as the Loop-Gold Coast-South Loop skyline.

You mention Chinatown; compared to a handful of other cities, our Chinatown is lame. I was over that way a few weeks ago on a Friday night, and it was dead. When I think of Chinatown I think of high density neighborhood where there is something going on 24/7; ours is not like that at all.
It shouldn't matter that Hyde Park doesn't have a skyline; in all honesty, I think skylines in general are over rated. Hyde Park has the potential to be an awesome neighborhood, but aside from UC there isnt much there; its actual pretty quiet (I know this has a lot to do with NIMBY's).

the greater downtown area
the areas both north, south, and west of it that relate to it
the outer ring of city neighborhoods, residential and without the city "buzz"
inner ring suburbs
outer ring suburbs
exurbia



I think this is one of the disadvantages of having a centralized core. The farther from it that you go, the less significant the area becomes.

What would need to be done to reverse this? The northwest side of the city thrives b/c of O'hare Rosemont area, could something like that be done on the southwest side of the city, Midway?

I hate how Chicago has neglected most of its south and west sides. I'll never understand that. Totally blown opportunity.

Chicago needs its own version of a Queens.

There are certain elements of history that seem to stick. This is one of them. Power and race were an ill-formed mix that caused the way we see Chicago and Chicagoland to tilt northward (and jump the west side to include much of west suburbia as well).

Chicago is an American city and it parallels America's own dealing with power and race. There are so many parts of our racist past (and present) that play into our lives in ways we don't even recognize.

Throughout the 1950's and the 60's, Congress Street was the dividing line between what Chicago wanted itself to be and what it would have liked to forget about (interestingly, Market Street served the same role in San Francisco). The revival of the city put real estate pressures for development both west and south. On the South Side, Roosevelt Road became the new Congress which got breached and development went south to the next Congress, Cermak, with development today heading south from there to Hyde Park without any barriers in the central part of the city.

How much we can break our old paradigms will determine what will happen in the outer reaches of the West Side and the mid and outer parts of the South. Our successes will be largely determined on how we break the racial and economic segregation that still is so pervassive in our society.

I think this is one of the disadvantages of having a centralized core. The farther from it that you go, the less significant the area becomes.

What would need to be done to reverse this? The northwest side of the city thrives b/c of O'hare Rosemont area, could something like that be done on the southwest side of the city, Midway?

It certainly is an interesting city, prelude. at one time, Chicago was seen as a fascade facing Lake Michigan with its best face forward...and the mean streets of a dangerous and unwelcoming city behind it.

That certainly doesn't describe today, but what we have today is still quite unusual:

where else can you think of where this enormous, historical, hugely developed, dense skyline sticks out of a surrounding that while decidedly urban and often delightful is virtually low scale in comparison.

Dismiss New York for the obvious. Look at places like Boston and San Francisco as they spread from their downtowns into dense areas that have little or nothing to do with a waterfront location (a la LSD).

What can be done to change the routine? In suburbia, both the edge city concept of Schaumburg and the taking-advantage-of-downtown in an established city like Evanston offer some possiblities. Could Orland Park mimic Schaumburg and Oak Park mimic Evanston in this respect?

The city can encourage the further development of the O'Hare area if it were to combine with Rosemont that shares this zone with it in a joint effort to continue the nice new perks (theatres, expanding convention business, infussion of major restaurants) that are adding sizzle to this high rise zone.

Could a smaller but still successful concept work in the Chicago (as well as suburban) areas that surround Midway?

How about the South Side. Since this is just speculation, I'll speculate: take advantage of the South Side's most successful neighborhood, Hyde Park, and consider developing a zone close by but inland from it that could be developed commerically and residentially. In the North Side, how about similiar development in the most retailed and commercialized region of the North Side lakefront: Uptown. Wouldn't Uptown's location, smack in the middle of the mid-north side with easy access from the near north and far north areas be prime land for another major node?

I think this is one of the disadvantages of having a centralized core. The farther from it that you go, the less significant the area becomes.

What would need to be done to reverse this? The northwest side of the city thrives b/c of O'hare Rosemont area, could something like that be done on the southwest side of the city, Midway?

^ It seems like we're having the same discussion on two threads. While I am pretty down on the south & west sides, I think there are plenty of advantages to having a heavily centralized core. Chicago's downtown is an animal of its own that is expanding and swallowing up land around it, and that's the product of everybody wanting to be there. It also tends to attract young people, businesses, investment, etc etc. What could possibly be wrong with that? I wouldn't tamper with such a great process.

What I don't get is how Chicago's wealth has completely failed to transform completely forlorn neighborhoods into some thing more productive. In New York, for example, people would kill to live within a 10-15 minute train ride of their Manhattan jobs for such a cheap price. Here we have the barely-used Green and (westside) Blue lines sitting on butt-vacant land, plus Aldermen who are supportive of development, and nobody's jumping?

Why do so many areas of the south and west sides look so damn bleak & depressing? The city should turn whole swaths of land into suburbia, as far as I'm concerned--give people what they want. Core lakefront neighborhoods (south to about 63rd, west till about Halsted or so...) should be held to more urban design standards, but let developers do what they wish with the rest of the city.

There are certain elements of history that seem to stick. This is one of them. Power and race were an ill-formed mix that caused the way we see Chicago and Chicagoland to tilt northward (and jump the west side to include much of west suburbia as well).

Chicago is an American city and it parallels America's own dealing with power and race. There are so many parts of our racist past (and present) that play into our lives in ways we don't even recognize.

Throughout the 1950's and the 60's, Congress Street was the dividing line between what Chicago wanted itself to be and what it would have liked to forget about (interestingly, Market Street served the same role in San Francisco). The revival of the city put real estate pressures for development both west and south. On the South Side, Roosevelt Road became the new Congress which got breached and development went south to the next Congress, Cermak, with development today heading south from there to Hyde Park without any barriers in the central part of the city.

How much we can break our old paradigms will determine what will happen in the outer reaches of the West Side and the mid and outer parts of the South. Our successes will be largely determined on how we break the racial and economic segregation that still is so pervassive in our society.

^ Just saw this response.

That's fine, Ed, but this is what gets me. Whenever I've driven around Bronzeville, I didn't see poor black people (after the projects were torn down). I saw NOBODY. There's nothing there but prarie. We have our chance to start anew. I like some of the stuff that's happening (Park Boulevard, Jazz on the Boulevard, etc) but it's not enough--we need more developers building away on different plots of land, without the disincentive of being forced to provide affordable housing.

Certain Aldermen are afraid of gentrification, but as far as I'm concerned, gentrification is exactly what the south side could use. And where are all the Mexicans on this one? Build it and they will come, I say...

Hopefully, getting the Olympics will help to transform this area.

^ Just saw this response.

That's fine, Ed, but this is what gets me. Whenever I've driven around Bronzeville, I didn't see poor black people (after the projects were torn down). I saw NOBODY. There's nothing there but prarie. We have our chance to start anew. I like some of the stuff that's happening (Park Boulevard, Jazz on the Boulevard, etc) but it's not enough--we need more developers building away on different plots of land, without the disincentive of being forced to provide affordable housing.

Certain Aldermen are afraid of gentrification, but as far as I'm concerned, gentrification is exactly what the south side could use. And where are all the Mexicans on this one? Build it and they will come, I say...

One reason Chicagoans favor the central area is it's the only region of the city that all races are represented, at least it appears that way when walking on the streets, and where you can take a visitor without worrying about being hasseled or embaressed. Most whites would never consider taking a friend to the south side to show off the city because of the fear of being confronted in a negative way or being a victim of crime. They also know that southside neighborhoods offers very little, compared to the northside, quality urban culture (entertaiment, dining, shopping, etc.). (Not all whites but the majority)

Maybe this unbalanced veiw of the city will change as redevelopment continues through parts of the southside, especially the lakefront neighborhoods. Alderman Preckwinkle has been encouraging more density and pedestrian/transit oriented developments in her ward. There have been meetings about high density projects in North Kenwood (44th -48th/Cottage Grove Avenue, Oakwood Boulevard/Lake Park Avenue) , Hyde Park (Harper Court) and, the Michael Reese site. What is needed are high density, mixed use, market rate and affordable residendial developments where appropiate (lakefront, large parks and wide boulevards). Currently there are no districts that offer a full variety of urban culture any where on the southside. Many residents on the south side are comfortable with a low density slow pace life style. In meetings that I've attend many residents always use Hyde Park as an example of the type of neighborhood they don't want. Their reason for rejecting neighborhoods like Hyde Park with higher densities are traffic, parking and the false sense of crime that comes with density. Preckwinkle is using DPD and other organizations to educate residents about the good benefits of density. I believe that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wards are key to changing how the residents of this city view the entire city. The right redevelopment strategies in these neighborhoods will encourage people, young and old of all races, to live and play there.

Hopefully, getting the Olympics will help to transform this area.

How will it? Have the Olympics transformed Atlanta? How about Salt Lake City?

^ Just saw this response.

That's fine, Ed, but this is what gets me. Whenever I've driven around Bronzeville, I didn't see poor black people (after the projects were torn down). I saw NOBODY. There's nothing there but prarie. We have our chance to start anew. I like some of the stuff that's happening (Park Boulevard, Jazz on the Boulevard, etc) but it's not enough--we need more developers building away on different plots of land, without the disincentive of being forced to provide affordable housing.

Certain Aldermen are afraid of gentrification, but as far as I'm concerned, gentrification is exactly what the south side could use. And where are all the Mexicans on this one? Build it and they will come, I say...

the further out you go from the loop the longer the edge of that concetric ring gets...and the degree of potential development goes down, it seems, incredmentally. Let's not forget that even the North Side redevelopment didn't take place over night...and it had a more favorable (less industrialized, less bisected by r.r. lines, less depressed) environment for redevelopment. Urban, I think there is just too much of a work-in-progress dynamic here on what's going to develop. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. For example, I have to wonder how much the area around the Cell will be more Wrigley like with further growth and development.

I see Chicago's Westside, west of the United Center, and the Southside along the Lakeshore south of 21st and down to Hyde Park (but not sure how far west) as being the next "hotspots" There really is no other way around it.


But back to the Queens comparison, I personally view Queens in a similar manner to the Southside of Chicago. I have relatives in Astoria. It has it's hotspots, immigrant hubs, and many large tracks of blighted communities. As does Brooklyn, and the Bronx. Staten Island reminded me of the far Northwest Side of Chicago or even more suburban than that.....Brooklyn seemed to feel more independent of the other boroughs imo.

I see Chicago's Westside, west of the United Center, and the Southside along the Lakeshore south of 21st and down to Hyde Park (but not sure how far west) as being the next "hotspots" There really is no other way around it.



Should (or could) the city of Chicago encourage the UC/Med Center area as a near-Loop commercial center.

[QUOTE=-Akira-;16135530 Downtown Chicago honestly isn't as good as some other cities I have been too: Seattle, Boston, NYC to name a few. [/QUOTE]

well i certainly don't want a shit fest here, akira. first, you are entitled to your opinion. Second, while i've never been to seattle, i am been to Boston and like it very much. That said, I don't think that downtown Boston can hold a candle to downtown Chicago on any scale. The energy level of Chicago downtown as a core far exceeds Seattle. The lakefront location, the amount of downtown residences, the shopping, the concentrations of museums downtown far exceeds what Boston has to offer. Prudential Center and Copley Place are a far cry from Michigan Avenue shopping. Entertainment options are far stronger in DT Chgo. It's the Chicago hotels that are ranked among the top in the US in so many surveys. Nothing like Millenium Park exists in Boston, no matter how they cover the Big Dig. And for smashing location and variety of things to do (other than shop), Navy Pier has Quincy Market beat. Boston and the Freedom Trail get an edge, but honestly I don't see how DT Bos can be put in the same league as DT Chgo....although, as noted, Boston itself is a fantastic city (and wears far better sox than we do)

^^

I agree, but judging Boston by its downtown is not giving the City the credit it deserves. I wouldn't mind having something similar to Boston's North End bordering our downtown

I've always felt that when Chicagoans boast about their "city" and its "architecture", they're only talking about, not the "city core" (as defined above), but more narrowly, the "downtown" area (the dense, high-rise area that runs from the John Hancock to the Sears Tower). However, while the downtown area is known across the country -and the world- for its pionerring architecture, there is plenty of amazing architecture -mostly 19th and early 20th centuries- in the neighborhoods. When I talk about the city of Chicago, I also include Bucktown/Wicker Park, Andersonville, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Humbolt Park, Old Town, Village, etc...all the areas that are densely built, have amazing architecture from about 100 years ago, and have recently been (or are currently being) renovated with an injection of cash. For those of you that remember Chicago 15-20 years ago, even most of the North Side was pretty bleak, boring, and dilapidated. And look at what's happening now: Chicago is becoming a city again, with old buldings being restored, atttractive new buildings going up (both in modern and traditional styles), trees and plants are being planted everywhere, and cafes/bars/restaurants have sprung up on every city block. I've noticed that this is just starting on parts of the West and South Sides. Maybe it'll be a while, but maybe the development is headed to these areas too? Unfortunately, the far south side hasn't seen any development, but areas like UIC/Taylor Street, Pilsen, etc, look like they're changing.

But back to the Queens comparison, I personally view Queens in a similar manner to the Southside of Chicago. I have relatives in Astoria. It has it's hotspots, immigrant hubs, and many large tracks of blighted communities. As does Brooklyn, and the Bronx. Staten Island reminded me of the far Northwest Side of Chicago or even more suburban than that.....Brooklyn seemed to feel more independent of the other boroughs imo.

^ Queens is absolutely nothing like the south side of Chicago. Queens is one of the most diverse and vibrant places in America. It is also full of dense development. It doesn't reek of hopelessness & despair, like you see in many southside and westside Chicago communities.

^^

I agree, but judging Boston by its downtown is not giving the City the credit it deserves. I wouldn't mind having something similar to Boston's North End bordering our downtown

i totally agree, prelude. same could be said about san francisco in its relationship with Chicago.

^ Queens is absolutely nothing like the south side of Chicago. Queens is one of the most diverse and vibrant places in America. It is also full of dense development. It doesn't reek of hopelessness & despair, like you see in many southside and westside Chicago communities.

Queens is different from anything in Chicago. It started as separate villages that grew together. I think to agree the outer boroughs (particularly Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island) have had more opporutnity to develop their own personalities separate from the city apart than what you would see in Chicago.

@ edsg: I'm sorry, but I thought this thread was on the city of Chicago as a whole? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Chicago, I love downtown Chicago, I love the lakefront, I love the river, I love the CBD, I love the Loop...I bleed Chicago, ask anyone of my friends (if you could...).

BUT I think Chicago has SOOOOOOOO much more to offer in the rest of the city, outside of downtown, than just some museums, some high-end shopping, Navy Pier etc. I was in no way trying to slam Chicago (is it any surprise that a slight offense to Chicago was quickly picked up though...) so you don't need to justify Chicago's greatness; I live here, I know what it's like. Maybe I went too far when saying Chicago and "isn't as good" in the same sentence (a MAJOR sin on this forum)...but the point I was trying to make is that (to me at least) Chicago is not defined by it's downtown but rather in its history, its neighborhoods, and its ethnic enclaves. Other cities have great downtowns but the rest of the city just doesn't hold up...that is not true in Chicago.

Isn't Skokie our Queens?

Personally I think areas in both Queens and the San Fernando Valley are able to accomplish something that can't be duplicated outside of New York or Los Angeles: have communities that are actually villages of their own in all ways except municipal.

Certainly there is nothing comparable in Chicago.

Queens and SFV are welcoming places for immigrants in the sense that the landscape (and the historical nature of the palces) allow them to create a sense of a "world apart", a separate entity that can be molded into a home-away-from-home, not part of the city landscape and its interconnectiveness (even though the physical interconection is there).

South and West sides Chicago: they're more Bronx like. I see the Bronx as the only borough that is the true extension of Manhattan. The Bronx would be Manhattan if there had been no Harlem River. And while the northern Bronx has some pretty identifiable places that are more town-like and related to the suburbs in Westchester, the far city limits of Chicago has such communities, too.

But by and large, the Bronx is part of the real NYC city grid that marches northward from Manhattan is less suited for ethnic enclave as Queens is. And, as noted, Chicago's south and west side seem more Bronx like to me than Queens like.

An oversimplication, I'm sure, but I do believe that Queen and SFV have community-building possiblities that exceed other urban areas and nothing comparable exists in Chicago.

Let me throw out another idea on centralization in Chicago.

It's a New York-Chicago comparison but only in the sense of how each city divides itself internally.

In some respects, Chicago with its concentric ring layout actually puts more importance to its greater downtown area (North to Cermak, lakefront to perhaps Ashland) than incredibly does New York City into Manhattan.

We really do see downtown as our "main street" and have had little desire to have any minnor "downtowns" to compete with it.

Downtown Chicago is a special place: big, bold, and overpowering, it has no neighbors other than the Chicago neighborhoods that abut it. It is its own world. There is no Jersey across the Hudson, no Cambridge across the Charles, no Arlington across the Potomac or Camden across the Delaware. Nothing close by interrelates to it except those close in Chicago neighborhoods.

The structure of the city of Chicago reenforces the concentric rings. There is no East River or a bay that subdivde Chicago into anything comparable to New York's boroughs. No mountain range separates one part of Chicago from another the way the Hollywood Hills do in LA. The concentric rings, the lack of physical barriers, and the very nature of a grid pierced by diagonal streets angled to toward the Loop squash the competition in ways incomparable to New York or LA.....or Boston, DC, and a whole bunch of other places for that matter.

And while Manhattan far exceeds downtown Chicago in breathe and scope, Manhattan in some respects is less of a focal point in New York than downtown is in Chicago.

Perhaps one can make a compelling argument that no city in the US so centralizes itself as Chicago does. Even our major museums, often spread into leafier neighborhood communties in other cities, tend to be right smack downtown in Chicago.

None of these observations about Chicago's centrality are necessarily a plus...or a minus. They just are. So for better or for worse or actually a real mix of the two, we live with centralization today like no other place in America.

What we need to decide as a city and as a metropolitan community is: is this the route we wish to go? is this the best way to organize ourselves in the future or do we need to encourage the growth of other centers that can, even on a rudimentary level, compete with downtown or at least offer some of its alternatives.

And while Manhattan far exceeds downtown Chicago in breathe and scope, Manhattan in some respects is less of a focal point in New York than downtown is in Chicago.

Perhaps one can make a compelling argument that no city in the US so centralizes itself as Chicago does. Even our major museums, often spread into leafier neighborhood communties in other cities, tend to be right smack downtown in Chicago.


I think this just about says everything. Chicago may be a bit too Centralized. It would seem that there is nothing to encourage growth in the west and far south sides. However, one advantage that Chicago holds over NYC and LA is CHEAP HOUSING! I truly believe that if a devolper came in and built 10,000-20,000 mid-low priced ($155-200K) houses in the south/west sides they would sell. I think its a matter of somebody stepping up and taking the risk.

None of these observations about Chicago's centrality are necessarily a plus...or a minus. They just are.
I'm glad you put that in there as well.

If other centers such as Schaumburg and Oak Brook continue to develop and become major sources of employment, we can't just ignore them. As much as Chicago IS centrally focused, it also has MAJOR periphery employment and social centers (let's not forget that the Loop only accounts for ~<10% of the jobs in the region). I'd love to see these areas become more integrated with Chicago...perhaps Blue Line extension to Schaumburg and Oak Brook, both suggested in one of the RTPs. The centralization though is definitely on the agenda of the Daley administration trying to make Chicago's downtown one for tourists and locals alike.

^ Queens is absolutely nothing like the south side of Chicago. Queens is one of the most diverse and vibrant places in America. It is also full of dense development. It doesn't reek of hopelessness & despair, like you see in many southside and westside Chicago communities.

Chicago doesn't have an equivalant to Queens or Brooklyn for that matter.

I'm glad you put that in there as well.

If other centers such as Schaumburg and Oak Brook continue to develop and become major sources of employment, we can't just ignore them. As much as Chicago IS centrally focused, it also has MAJOR periphery employment and social centers (let's not forget that the Loop only accounts for ~<10% of the jobs in the region). I'd love to see these areas become more integrated with Chicago...perhaps Blue Line extension to Schaumburg and Oak Brook, both suggested in one of the RTPs. The centralization though is definitely on the agenda of the Daley administration trying to make Chicago's downtown one for tourists and locals alike.

akira, i agree. but i sure wish there were more Evanstons out there instead although they tend to have excellent public transportation while offering incredibly poor car access (again...and you'll appreciate this one...for better or worse. just is.:))

Personally I think areas in both Queens and the San Fernando Valley are able to accomplish something that can't be duplicated outside of New York or Los Angeles: have communities that are actually villages of their own in all ways except municipal.

Certainly there is nothing comparable in Chicago.

Queens and SFV are welcoming places for immigrants in the sense that the landscape (and the historical nature of the palces) allow them to create a sense of a "world apart", a separate entity that can be molded into a home-away-from-home, not part of the city landscape and its interconnectiveness (even though the physical interconection is there).

South and West sides Chicago: they're more Bronx like. I see the Bronx as the only borough that is the true extension of Manhattan. The Bronx would be Manhattan if there had been no Harlem River. And while the northern Bronx has some pretty identifiable places that are more town-like and related to the suburbs in Westchester, the far city limits of Chicago has such communities, too.

But by and large, the Bronx is part of the real NYC city grid that marches northward from Manhattan is less suited for ethnic enclave as Queens is. And, as noted, Chicago's south and west side seem more Bronx like to me than Queens like.

An oversimplication, I'm sure, but I do believe that Queen and SFV have community-building possiblities that exceed other urban areas and nothing comparable exists in Chicago.

^ Well put. I agree with the Bronx comparison

^ Queens is absolutely nothing like the south side of Chicago. Queens is one of the most diverse and vibrant places in America. It is also full of dense development. It doesn't reek of hopelessness & despair, like you see in many southside and westside Chicago communities.

Well, I guess I was comparing the parts of Queens that I have been to, to the parts of the Southside I travel to. Actually Astoria reminds me much like Nortown around Devon Ave., but as I took the elevated train from Manhattan through Queens to get to Astoria, the areas in between look much like the Southside, as you take the Orange Line towards Midway..... Of course Much of the Southside can be compared to parts of Brooklyn or the Bronx too. You know many areas of the Southside have a great deal of diversity as well (for sure not as much as the Northside). Density, the Southside has plenty of it. Especially in the Hispanic areas.


East Queens NYC
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1031/1317671340_e2f51746f4_o.jpg

Astoria Queens NYC
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/395924601_2c4cc12acf_o.jpg


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/162838607_f0fdd286d3_o.jpg



Bridgeport
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/390200680_cadde91081_b.jpg

32nd and Kedzie
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/61500408_9ff3abc090_b.jpg

I truly believe that if a devolper came in and built 10,000-20,000 mid-low priced ($155-200K) houses in the south/west sides they would sell. I think its a matter of somebody stepping up and taking the risk.

^ Not to be a wise guy, but I've spent years on these forums pushing that point. I may be totally wrong here, but I really think the city needs to "open the floodgates" (I even started a thread with such a title about 2 years ago) to development on its south and west sides. While Chicago will never have a Queens (as argued by Edsg), I think the city could certainly stem some population losses due to lack of affordable housing if such a process were to occur.

I'm glad you put that in there as well.

If other centers such as Schaumburg and Oak Brook continue to develop and become major sources of employment, we can't just ignore them. As much as Chicago IS centrally focused, it also has MAJOR periphery employment and social centers (let's not forget that the Loop only accounts for ~<10% of the jobs in the region). I'd love to see these areas become more integrated with Chicago...perhaps Blue Line extension to Schaumburg and Oak Brook, both suggested in one of the RTPs. The centralization though is definitely on the agenda of the Daley administration trying to make Chicago's downtown one for tourists and locals alike.

^ Yeah, my whole problem is that the city is not capitalizing on its assets. It seems to focus on downtown and the north side. If you're a professional who wants a good place to live, you either live in or around downtown, on the north side, or in the suburbs. Why not create suburbia on the south side? I know that the thought of more strip malls and aluminum siding in the city makes some of you sick to the stomach, but if executed properly (higher density and stricter design guidelines closer to the lakefront and transit lines, relaxed rules elsewhere), the south/west sides of Chicago can become very vibrant places.

This process is occurring to some degree, no doubt. But there's too much talk, talk, talk that is slowing it down. Too many communities asking what's in it for them. I just don't think these people are in a position to be picky.

Well, I was comparing the parts of Queens that I have been to. Actually Astoria reminds me much like Nortown around Devon Ave., but as I took the elevated train from Manhattan through Queens to get to Astoria, the areas in between look much like the Southside, as you take the Orange Line towards Midway.....You know many areas of the Southside have a great deal of diversity as well (for sure not as much as the Northside). Density, the Southside has plenty of it. Especially in the Hispanic areas.

^ There are certain pockets of the south side, without a doubt, that may resemble Queens. Bridgeport, Pilsen, Hyde Park, South Shore, Beverly, etc come to mind.

But Queens just doesn't remotely have as much decay. Plus, with real estate values in the entire New York region going through the roof, developers are going nuts--you really don't see much vacant land. In my neighborhood way out in Forest Hills, you walk in any direction and you see Synogogues, Russian immigrants, Hispanics, Middle Easterners, Indians, etc etc etc pretty much running the local economy. Nothing here remotely resembles decay, and that's because a very liveable semi-suburban space has been created (yet with good transit access).

Here's an example of a development that I would have barfed at even a year ago, but now I think it's a good idea. It's about a mile from a green line stop, so TOD is pretty much out of the question. Still too much talk, but this is exactly what the city needs to do in these areas:

Chicago Lawn teams up to back Cannery

To learn more about and show support for a proposed 1 1/2 million-square-foot retail complex in Chicago Lawn, about 50 community leaders assembled at the Churchview Senior Complex on Sept. 26 for a meeting convened by primary partners General Growth Properties and NCP lead agency Greater Southwest Development Corp.

Jeff Bartow, director of Southwest Organizing Project, holds up the Chicago Lawn NCP quality of life plan, titled "Making Connections," in setting the tone for the Sept. 26 meeting about a proposed 1 1/2 million square foot retail development called The Cannery.

http://www.newcommunities.org/cmaimages/Cannery-leasingplan2.jpg

The residents, business owners, educators, clergy, police, and nonprofit social services providers and community developers packed the room to hear about The Cannery, which would incorporate existing retail outlets like Jewel-Osco and Sears while adding new anchors, smaller stores, restaurants and a community center.

In introducing the 27-acre concept, Jeff Bartow, director of the Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP), a key partner in the NCP task force process, held up the Chicago Lawn quality-of-life plan, titled "Making Connections." He reminded those assembled that the plan called for building a "town center" at 60th Street and Western Avenue.
http://www.newcommunities.org/news/articleDetail.asp?objectID=857&communityID=

^^

No argument there. Queens is a self sustaining Borough, with little urban decay (unlike the Southside), that has loads of diversity, and of course it's transit access is top notch... The only part of NYC that I would think one would need to drive is if you lived on Staten Island.

Urban, from your NY/Chgo experiences, I'd be interested in knowing...

how does the Manhattan and outer borough organizational system make New York a better place

-and-

are there any disadvantages you see to the one star borough, physically removed on an island, and the other four, admittedly with enough to offer in their own, being more satelite like around Manhattan

???????

Urban, from your NY/Chgo experiences, I'd be interested in knowing...

how does the Manhattan and outer borough organizational system make New York a better place

^ A better place? Not sure about that.

I think, as you described, the essence of the boroughs is that they have to provide for their own residents because they tend to be separated from eachother. So, in the case of the south side of Chicago, you have people who actually don't mind the dearth of retail because they can simply drive to the Dominick's on Roosevelt and Canal, or head downtown, to get what they need. That's like a person in Queens going to Manhattan to get lightbulbs and ground sirloin, which sounds rather ridiculous.

In that sense, Chicago's south side would be better off if downtown wasn't so accessible to them. I imagine that in the upcoming years, with more residential and retail planned, people will go downtown less often because 1) more stores will be in their vicinity, and 2) increased traffic headed downtown will become more of a hassle.

-and-

are there any disadvantages you see to the one star borough, physically removed on an island, and the other four, admittedly with enough to offer in their own, being more satelite like around Manhattan

???????

^ Not sure if I see any disadvantages because I am a huge fan of a "star" borough dominating everything. I feel that way because I love density and highrises, and you would not have had that in New York if every region of the city were given equal importance, as is the case in LA.

That's also what I like about Chicago as well. Chicago's downtown is quite a bit more accessible, though, which is a good thing but also discourages individual communities from creating their own little commercial districts.

Good post, Ed.


Let me throw out another idea on centralization in Chicago.

It's a New York-Chicago comparison but only in the sense of how each city divides itself internally.

In some respects, Chicago with its concentric ring layout actually puts more importance to its greater downtown area (North to Cermak, lakefront to perhaps Ashland) than incredibly does New York City into Manhattan.

We really do see downtown as our "main street" and have had little desire to have any minnor "downtowns" to compete with it.

Downtown Chicago is a special place: big, bold, and overpowering, it has no neighbors other than the Chicago neighborhoods that abut it. It is its own world. There is no Jersey across the Hudson, no Cambridge across the Charles, no Arlington across the Potomac or Camden across the Delaware. Nothing close by interrelates to it except those close in Chicago neighborhoods.

The structure of the city of Chicago reenforces the concentric rings. There is no East River or a bay that subdivde Chicago into anything comparable to New York's boroughs. No mountain range separates one part of Chicago from another the way the Hollywood Hills do in LA. The concentric rings, the lack of physical barriers, and the very nature of a grid pierced by diagonal streets angled to toward the Loop squash the competition in ways incomparable to New York or LA.....or Boston, DC, and a whole bunch of other places for that matter.

And while Manhattan far exceeds downtown Chicago in breathe and scope, Manhattan in some respects is less of a focal point in New York than downtown is in Chicago.

Perhaps one can make a compelling argument that no city in the US so centralizes itself as Chicago does. Even our major museums, often spread into leafier neighborhood communties in other cities, tend to be right smack downtown in Chicago.

None of these observations about Chicago's centrality are necessarily a plus...or a minus. They just are. So for better or for worse or actually a real mix of the two, we live with centralization today like no other place in America.

What we need to decide as a city and as a metropolitan community is: is this the route we wish to go? is this the best way to organize ourselves in the future or do we need to encourage the growth of other centers that can, even on a rudimentary level, compete with downtown or at least offer some of its alternatives.

^ Not to be a wise guy, but I've spent years on these forums pushing that point. I may be totally wrong here, but I really think the city needs to "open the floodgates" (I even started a thread with such a title about 2 years ago) to development on its south and west sides. While Chicago will never have a Queens (as argued by Edsg), I think the city could certainly stem some population losses due to lack of affordable housing if such a process were to occur.

There is only one small problem. Many of the alderman in these communities you speak of are short sighted caused by real fears and mis information. The real fear is that they were elected to improve the community which leads to a better quality of life for the current residents (black, hispanic or white). If they open up the flood gate to allow thousands of new residents, many of which are not of the same ethnic group or economic class, they could lose their jobs in the process (I don't personally believe this). Some just don't understand cities and how they work. Their experiences in development has been limited to the southside of Chicago.

You have to keep in mind the politican side of the equation. It's has a major role in why there's been so little redevelopment in many of the communities you talk about. Until the city really begin to pump resources into these areas including assisting some of these alderman (training and educating), you will not see a large scale redevelopment of the south and westsides. Daley rarley intervenes when some alderman make bad descions. Look at how Tillman ran her ward for nearly two decades. Because of her lack of action 75% of the development went elsewhere.

I think this just about says everything. Chicago may be a bit too Centralized. It would seem that there is nothing to encourage growth in the west and far south sides. However, one advantage that Chicago holds over NYC and LA is CHEAP HOUSING! I truly believe that if a devolper came in and built 10,000-20,000 mid-low priced ($155-200K) houses in the south/west sides they would sell. I think its a matter of somebody stepping up and taking the risk.

There aren't any singular sites that can accomodate this many housing units, unless we do a Manhattan-style public housing project, with wall-to-wall highrises, and that's a bit ridiculous for the South Side.

Development on smaller sites is occurring. What the city needs to do is pass a aggressive set of neglect laws that allow for city seizure of land after it has lain vacant for a while.

Why would 10-20,000 families suddenly decide to move to the West and South Sides of Chicago? That seems a little backwards. I can't think of a Chicago neighborhood on that scale that grew because of housing and not because of jobs. Nobody's going to want to live in Lawndale unless they have a good reason to.

If the answer is that those people are supposed to be coming in from the suburbs to be closer to work--you might want to actually ask people who live in the suburbs why they live there and not on the West Side of Chicago.

^^

I know why many people of all economic backgrounds, but especially middle and lower income families are leaving Chicago (and the rest of Cook) for Elgin, Aurora, and Joliet..... OUTRAGEOUS taxes, especially in the property sector. We are being bled bone dry .:ohno:

^^
Exactly. The idea is to keep people here and to draw people in from Joliet, Elgin, Aurora, etc...People move to those places b/c they are affordable.

Nobody's going to want to live in Lawndale unless they have a good reason to.


This could be said about anywhere; obviously a family isn't going to be deciding between Lawndale and Glencoe; but many low income/immigrant families could have the opportunity to own a home in Chicago without having to go 50 miles outside the city

am i missing something here.

we have had all this discussion about how the most troublesome parts of the South and West sides would benefit from a Queens type rivival and discuss how can we get Chicagoans to move into these areas and reinvest in them....

while all the time, Queens was reinvigorated through immigration and would, in fact, be bleeding population and be in decay if it weren't for those immigrants.

Why would 10-20,000 families suddenly decide to move to the West and South Sides of Chicago? That seems a little backwards. I can't think of a Chicago neighborhood on that scale that grew because of housing and not because of jobs. Nobody's going to want to live in Lawndale unless they have a good reason to.

^ I think you're kind of missing my point. The reality is, families are sort of going out of their way to not live on Chicago's south side, reasons generally being one of perception and racism. Hence they're either on the north side or in the suburbs.

If race and crime weren't an issue, Chicago's south side would be just like Chicago's north side.

but i sure wish there were more Evanstons out there instead although they tend to have excellent public transportation while offering incredibly poor car access
Believe me, I'd rather take Evanston or Oak Park over Schaumburg or Oak Brook ANY of the week.

Yes, because the things that you value--diverse restaurants, fun bars, cool shops, access to public transit, architectural style--are more easily found in Evanston than Schaumburg. But surely you can understand that there are different things--good public schools, big back yards, lower crime rates, affordable single-family homes, easy drives to outlying jobs, leafy quiet--that other people value.

If Chicagoland had a half-million more families who valued the same things as the young men on this board, they probably would create the demand to quickly repopulate the West and South Sides. That's not the case at the moment. Instead, there are a lot of families who value the things to be found in new homes in Minooka and Gilberts and Antioch.

Now we could bemoan that, or claim that they've all been brainwashed by television and mortgage tax deductions and the Interstate Highway Act. Or we could be grateful for the half-million families who do value the central city and have stabilized much of the North Side and portions of the West and South Sides already. Without them, Chicago would be even emptier.

Yes, because the things that you value--diverse restaurants, fun bars, cool shops, access to public transit, architectural style--are more easily found in Evanston than Schaumburg. But surely you can understand that there are different things--good public schools, big back yards, lower crime rates, affordable single-family homes, easy drives to outlying jobs, leafy quiet--that other people value.

If Chicagoland had a half-million more families who valued the same things as the young men on this board, they probably would create the demand to quickly repopulate the West and South Sides. That's not the case at the moment. Instead, there are a lot of families who value the things to be found in new homes in Minooka and Gilberts and Antioch.

Now we could bemoan that, or claim that they've all been brainwashed by television and mortgage tax deductions and the Interstate Highway Act. Or we could be grateful for the half-million families who do value the central city and have stabilized much of the North Side and portions of the West and South Sides already. Without them, Chicago would be even emptier.

^ Perhaps, but I am arguing (and continue to do so) that the city does not need to appeal to pseudo-intellectual urban enthusiasts like ourselves to attract people to its south and west sides. It needs to stop pretending that some great "black metropolis" is going to make a comeback and just get real. Build a lot of cheap housing, encourage some retail centers, and call it a day...

The schools and jobs would just magically appear?

The schools and jobs would just magically appear?

^ Of course not.

But explain to me how several square miles of land next to the nation's second largest business district are practically vacant. That's not including the presence of a handful of colleges and Universities which seem to exist in a vacuum (a state of affairs that seems to be changing).

Do you really, honestly believe that a lack of jobs is why the south side remains vacant? I have a difficult time believing that. It certainly isn't an encompassing answer, when I think about it.

Nobody is giving me an explanation as to why Chicago's south side can't potentially (notice what's italicized here) compete with the suburbs. Those of you questioning the south side fail, on the same token, to question the boom in communities in outlying exurbs, miles and miles away from jobs (and highways), yet you question the viability of Chicago's south side, which has trains, buses, highways, an airport, and proximity to employment.

I don't understand why.

The southside has a problem the northside does not have: a large highway separating it from the city in I-55. This has contributed to slow transformation. Yes, the northside has 94, but it veers off westward a lot, and the mental barrier just isn't there between it and downtown access. Finally, motor row reinvestment, mccormick expansion, and development corridors like indiana, michigan, wabash, and state are gradually moving southward- even MLK is seeing great improvements. These things just take a lot of time, and once a large area builds a negative reputation that resounds throughout the country it's hard to rebuild an image. We're starting to see signs with these massive developments being proposed for US Steel works site, 39th an state... etc. Eventually, the city's south side will become better, but it will always have to face the controversy of displacing the poor since developers still need to make profits and CHA can only do so much to assist people. TUP, I think there is potential and there always has been, but in this case the chicken has to come before the egg and these neighborhoods need to have more police patrolling, improved schools and parks, and retail before families are comfortable living there. I'm optimistic as I see the city and developers finally realizing they can take advantage of a present opportunity. It may take another 50-60 years for it to even SLIGHTLY resemble the northside's general state, but it's good to start seeing some progress. Apologies for using blanket statements and generalizations, but it's for the sake of general discussion.

Yes, because the things that you value--diverse restaurants, fun bars, cool shops, access to public transit, architectural style--are more easily found in Evanston than Schaumburg. But surely you can understand that there are different things--good public schools, big back yards, lower crime rates, affordable single-family homes, easy drives to outlying jobs, leafy quiet--that other people value.

If Chicagoland had a half-million more families who valued the same things as the young men on this board, they probably would create the demand to quickly repopulate the West and South Sides. That's not the case at the moment. Instead, there are a lot of families who value the things to be found in new homes in Minooka and Gilberts and Antioch.

Now we could bemoan that, or claim that they've all been brainwashed by television and mortgage tax deductions and the Interstate Highway Act. Or we could be grateful for the half-million families who do value the central city and have stabilized much of the North Side and portions of the West and South Sides already. Without them, Chicago would be even emptier.

Downtown, isn't there also middle ground? Suburban inspired developments are at the forefront of softening the landscape that once was dominated by hulking malls and glass towers surrounded by parking lots.

Lifestyle centers have made a stab of returning a sense of place and walkability to the landscape. Are they incredibly artificial, nonorganic, contrieved, and blatantly disneyesque? Of course. But they mark a trend. The challenge will be for architects and the society they represent to generate complex centers like DT Evanston in a setting that is warm, walkable, practical and pragmatic....but decidedly authentic.

It really comes down to this: can we truly cut with the past that was the preceived warmth, coziness, and sense of security that the pre-WWII era provided us and come up with something meaningful for our times that will convey warmth and sense of place but in a setting that doesn't falsely rely on copying and sanitizing the past?

Can Schaumburg, Bollingbrook, Gurnee, and Orland contribute to America's future in more effective ways than they have to the present and the past?

The southside has a problem the northside does not have: a large highway separating it from the city in I-55. This has contributed to slow transformation.

have to disagree here, Chitowner. I think I-55 as it travels from the Ryan to LSD has enough connections between north and south to make it fairly seamless. McCormick Place itself is all the bridge you need between the two sides. Driving under the expressway on King Drive does not separate the convention center from areas south any more than the Ohio feeder ramp off the Kennedy is disruptive on the north.

What's the real key difference between north and side? The north end of downtown as it encompasses all the Near North Side became the fun side of downtown, a real destination compared to the more business oriented Loop. The Near South Side from Roosevelt to Cermak, with all its mind boggling new construction offers no such zone...and thus affects land development south of Cermak in a weaker way than areas north of North Avenue benefit from their location near the Near North Side.

^ Perhaps, but I am arguing (and continue to do so) that the city does not need to appeal to pseudo-intellectual urban enthusiasts like ourselves to attract people to its south and west sides. It needs to stop pretending that some great "black metropolis" is going to make a comeback and just get real. Build a lot of cheap housing, encourage some retail centers, and call it a day...

I totally agree. I believe that a good percentage of families and new immigrants would settle there. I believe and always will that the problem is race in politics (politians using the land for politacal gain).

Wow...I thought you had gotten all the suburban bland stuff out of your system..but what a twisty way to ask the same question over and over again. I guess you aren't hearing the majority of us who live in Chicago.

We fricken love our neighborhoods and most are unmatched throughout the majority of this country. We fricken love our beautiful center core. We live in CITIES because we love cities...that are urban and dense. We love getting around via Public Transportation. We love the lake. We love living a lifestyle that can NOT be matched in the suburbs. Chicago is a city of neighborhoods and a great deal of our lives is spent living day to day in our neighborhoods...this means going to the doctor, stores, restruarnts and what not. It means going to other neighborhoods too.....to experience what they have to do. It is knowing that I will never be able to eat at every fricken restaurant or experience every fricken shop in my life time. And I find that astounding and exciting.

Fricken = Exuberant

But explain to me how several square miles of land next to the nation's second largest business district are practically vacant.
Lack of demand. I didn't realize that was a big mystery to anyone. Many people considering the purchase of a new housing unit have children. Areas within the City of Chicago are served by Chicago Public Schools.

Chicago's south side . . . has trains, buses, highways, an airport, and proximity to employment.
Not very much employment. It's convenient to the Loop, but that's a very small proportion of the region's jobs. Skilled manufacturing is nearly all concentrated in the Northwest Suburbs now. When the Calumet steel district was roaring, the centroid of Chicago jobs was probably around the Stockyards. Now it's probably at the south end of O'Hare.
http://www.nipc.org/images/emp_spatial_2000.jpg
The only part of Chicago's demographic mix that is growing is Hispanic families. For reasons of language and education, those are the breadwinners least likely to work in the Loop. For cultural reasons, those are the families least likely to settle in areas perceived as "black."

have to disagree here, Chitowner. I think I-55 as it travels from the Ryan to LSD has enough connections between north and south to make it fairly seamless. McCormick Place itself is all the bridge you need between the two sides. Driving under the expressway on King Drive does not separate the convention center from areas south any more than the Ohio feeder ramp off the Kennedy is disruptive on the north.

What's the real key difference between north and side? The north end of downtown as it encompasses all the Near North Side became the fun side of downtown, a real destination compared to the more business oriented Loop. The Near South Side from Roosevelt to Cermak, with all its mind boggling new construction offers no such zone...and thus affects land development south of Cermak in a weaker way than areas north of North Avenue benefit from their location near the Near North Side.

You're right about there actually being a lot of connections going under or over I-55, but with the reputation that the "border" has, it makes it hard for developers to risk it there. You ask people 10 years ago if they'd go south of balbo, and most would say no. 5 years ago, they'd say they wouldn't go south of roosevelt. Today, you ask if they'd go south or even directly west of mccormick, and they'd say no. It's the same principle it always has been, except now it's roughly 12-14 blocks south of where that border was 10 years ago. I think mccormick acts moreso as an island right now, although that'll change once lexington park and motor row get developed. Yeah, I'll go south and west of mccormick, but not many others will and that's the problem. It's changing, but slowly. 5 Years from now, we'll be able to look at I-55 as less of a mental barrier for people.

Lack of demand. I didn't realize that was a big mystery to anyone. Many people considering the purchase of a new housing unit have children. Areas within the City of Chicago are served by Chicago Public Schools.

^ Obviously there is a lack of demand, but it's not because of the area's location. My whole point here is that the south side's location isn't its source of deficiency. It's a legacy of racism and bad, bad, bad planning. And I think it can be undone by GOOD planning. There is no reason why Chicago's south side can't revive if market forces are allowed to happen.


Not very much employment. It's convenient to the Loop, but that's a very small proportion of the region's jobs. Skilled manufacturing is nearly all concentrated in the Northwest Suburbs now. When the Calumet steel district was roaring, the centroid of Chicago jobs was probably around the Stockyards. Now it's probably at the south end of O'Hare.

^ Okay, but Kane County is exploding, even though there aren't a whole lot of dots there. I'm not following your line of reasoning here. Being close to the Loop is generally a good thing, and I'm not convinced that this can't be capitalized upon.

Attract more people with decent incomes, and they can build up local businesses that will attract immigrants. It really doesn't have to be that complicated. More people, more cars, more businesses, more lawns, more spending money, etc etc. From that you need more auto repair shops, store workers, lawn workers, maintenance people, other services, perhaps a small hospital or two, etc etc. Given enough time, why should this not be possible?

^ It certainly is possible, and I think it'll eventually happen. The city's plan includes transforming the area around mccormick-north has already been going on, west is starting to get going, and south has just scraped the surface with new homes on MLK dr. I believe that once enough new homes are either built or old homes renovated, the demand for retail and better schools will follow. It has to reach a tipping point before action happens, and we're still a little ways from that happening. Look at central station area for a prime example: Thousands of new residents moved in the area with medium to high income, and it tooks a few years for businesses to start coming and for the city to invest in fixing the streetscapes and placing more police in the area thus reducing crime. The tipping point will come more slowly south of cermak, because it's less likely that there will be the density that there is closer to roosevelt. Chinatown is also key in revitalization. If we can get the dots connected (conventions, chinese, chinatown's proximity to city,conventions) then that'll also be a big boost to development and revitalization. S State is finally starting to change! It's not if, it's when.

Families with children are only rarely attracted to City of Chicago locations, unless they can afford nothing else or can afford private schools and nannies. They view it as wiser to buy in a cornfield subdivision where $130,000 will get them a new house with three or four bedrooms, a big yard with trees and grass, and pretty good schools. They view this as better for the children, even if Dad works in the Loop and has a 90-minute commute so he only gets 10 minutes a day with the kids.

But chances are good that Dad doesn't work in the Loop. He works somewhere along the I-88 corridor or in Northbrook or Elk Grove Township. The drive from Yorkville to his job isn't 90 minutes, it's only 20. The family makes a completely rational decision that is good for them but bad for the region.

The reclamation of Chicago is taking place, but there are only so many yuppies and urbanites and rich empty-nesters in a metro area that's growing very slowly. But the transformation has really sped up in the last decade, and if you haven't visited in a while, you might be surprised at how rapidly the vacant lots of the South and West Sides are being absorbed.

There is no reason why Chicago's south side can't revive if market forces are allowed to happen.
I'm curious what market forces you think are being tampered with now. Until very recently, land on the South and West Sides was essentially free, served by streets and utilities, with no impact fees and no restrictions on building anything a developer proposed. Yet there was still no interest.

I'm curious what market forces you think are being tampered with now. Until very recently, land on the South and West Sides was essentially free, served by streets and utilities, with no impact fees and no restrictions on building anything a developer proposed. Yet there was still no interest.

^ Certain Aldermen (Dorothy Tillman) seemed pretty intent on blocking development in their ward. Not only that, but seemingly every south side Alderman has an obsession with "affordable housing", which can easily be provided if you get rid of the silly set asides and let developers build at whatever density that they see fit.

The incredibly low density of housing being built in Bronzeville right now just doesn't seem adequate to attract much commercial development (unless it's in the form of an ugly strip center with huge swaths of surface parking, which I would LOATHE to see more of along the south lakefront neighborhoods).

Hopefully the newer Alderman recognizes this and we have a chance to develop this part of the city correctly. Some of the projects proposed now near Green Line stops have some promise. I would like to see more highrises proposed, though; and not the Tower-in-a-Park kind

Dorothy Tillman seemed pretty intent on blocking development
You're generalizing from that???? If you propose new townhouses or an eightplex apartment building in Burnside or Roseland, Hamilton Park, or South Austin, the alderman would call a limo to drive you downtown to get the permits.

"affordable housing" can easily be provided if you get rid of the silly set asides and let developers build at whatever density that they see fit.

Anywhere south of 26th (except maybe a corner of Hyde Park) or west of Western developers can already build at any density they see fit. But they have to actually sell the units to someone.

The incredibly low density of housing being built in Bronzeville right now just doesn't seem adequate to attract much commercial development

Huh? It's probably five times the density they're building at in Yorkville, twelve times the density of Campton Hills. In one post you say let 'em build suburbia on the South Side, and then you say you don't want anything under 20,000/sq mi.

You're right about there actually being a lot of connections going under or over I-55, but with the reputation that the "border" has, it makes it hard for developers to risk it there. You ask people 10 years ago if they'd go south of balbo, and most would say no. 5 years ago, they'd say they wouldn't go south of roosevelt. Today, you ask if they'd go south or even directly west of mccormick, and they'd say no. It's the same principle it always has been, except now it's roughly 12-14 blocks south of where that border was 10 years ago. I think mccormick acts moreso as an island right now, although that'll change once lexington park and motor row get developed. Yeah, I'll go south and west of mccormick, but not many others will and that's the problem. It's changing, but slowly. 5 Years from now, we'll be able to look at I-55 as less of a mental barrier for people.

If you take a ride from Hyde Park to McCormick Place and stick as close to the lakefront (without being on LSD obviously) as possible, you will get the impression that Cermak is not any type of serious dividing point anymore. There is no question where the HP-McCP stretch of the lakefront is heading (with or without the Olympics).

What's happening to Chicago is that it is being revived the same way that it was built: from the center outward. The North Side spread, of course, has been pervassive and virtually fully extended, but the west and south certainly give every impression that the UC and McCormick Place are hardly the end of the road.

Anywhere south of 26th (except maybe a corner of Hyde Park) or west of Western developers can already build at any density they see fit. But they have to actually sell the units to someone.

^ A developer proposed a developmet of houses, multi-unit flats, and condos near midway airport about 6 months ago but the Alderman squashed it due to community opposition. Why? Too dense. That development was discussed here on this forum. It may be one development, but it's exactly what the city needs more of, and the Alderman caved into NIMBY's and the land will likely sit useless for another generation, just like other large swaths of the south/west sides.


Huh? It's probably five times the density they're building at in Yorkville, twelve times the density of Campton Hills. In one post you say let 'em build suburbia on the South Side, and then you say you don't want anything under 20,000/sq mi.

^ No, there's no contradiction here. I said that LAKEFRONT neighborhoods well-served by transit should be denser and held to urban design guidelines, and I include Bronzeville in that definition. I do NOT believe run-of-the mill suburbia belongs in Bronzeville.

I do think it's okay at 60th and Western, or down on 83rd, or west of Western, etc etc.

Anyhow, I'm not convinced that a bunch of single-family houses and townhomes will do much to support a pedestrian/transit-friendly environment in south lakefront neighborhoods. I would like to see much more variety in housing, including multilevel apartment and condo buildings.

But they have to actually sell the units to someone.

^ Aside from a housing meltdown that is affecting everyone, show me some data that homes for sale stay on the market significantly longer on the south side versus the north side.

I would argue that while people aren't jumping for joy to live on the south side, it can use its cheapness to its advantage and eventually evolve into a market for entry-level buyers

Near Midway???? I thought we were talking about the South Side. What does a project in Archer Heights or Garfield Ridge have to do with that?

I don't immediately find market times by ZIP or Community Area, but let's look at vacancy rates as a sort of proxy measure:

Percentage of housing units vacant in 2000:
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8438/vacant2000pt4.png

Caution: that stripe of dark brown down the Dan Ryan is undoubtedly the result of Stateway Gardens/Taylor Homes, which were being emptied in 2000. But even so, you see the clear difference between South Side/West Side and other, healthier parts of the city. Who knew Edgewater was so hot? This, by the way, is from a fascinating site where you can map various housing measures yourself (doesn't work with Safari):

http://www.chicagoareahousing.org/GIS/Theme.asp

There are two things working against a rapid South Side (or West Side) transformation into a haven for new homeowners: Chicago Public Schools, and the additional cost of building in the city. Even when the land is free, various studies find something like a $10,000-$30,000 premium to build the same house in the city as in the suburbs. It's everything from building permit delays to construction site security to union-protecting plumbing and electrical codes.

The schools thing is slowly changing, and in response, the frontiers are being pushed through Oakland and North Kenwood, through East Garfield Park and Lawndale. More slowly than you'd like, obviously, but a lot faster than I would have predicted 15 years ago.

For those not familiar there are pockets of developmental progress.

I just posed a question on "Da South Side" thread about a development around 85th & Parnell, but I don't know the community name or anything about how large the development will be.

Take a look in that thread and if you know anything regarding this, please post a reply.

For those not familiar there are pockets of developmental progress.

I just posed a question on "Da South Side" thread about a development around 85th & Parnell, but I don't know the community name or anything about how large the development will be.

Take a look in that thread and if you know anything regarding this, please post a reply.

Proposed 99 homes (The Havens).

http://www.havenschicago.com/

Who would've known. Had I not seen it, I knew no promotion on this. Who says the S.Side ain't happening?

I know there are other pockets of development, cause I saw some other new housing along the same tracks. Plus those in Chatham and further east.

Thank you for the information UrbPlanner.

There are two things working against a rapid South Side (or West Side) transformation into a haven for new homeowners: Chicago Public Schools, and the additional cost of building in the city.

^ Doesn't the north side have CPS? Doesn't seem to be an obstacle to development up there. Same with the additional cost of building

The schools thing is slowly changing, and in response, the frontiers are being pushed through Oakland and North Kenwood, through East Garfield Park and Lawndale. More slowly than you'd like, obviously, but a lot faster than I would have predicted 15 years ago.

^ I agree that progress is being made. Perhaps it's just frustrating driving through the south side and seeing so much despair, yet knowing that there is so much potential. I'd like to see change come faster, but what can you do?

^ Doesn't the north side have CPS? Doesn't seem to be an obstacle to development up there. Same with the additional cost of building

Because there's demand for the product on the North Side. The kind of change you're looking for has to happen slowly and incrementally.

If nearly all the other parents living around you have high expectations for their children, it's possible for CPS schools to offer a reasonable education. But that's a big if, and not one achieved by a few pioneers moving into a troubled neighborhood.

Trendy eating and shopping, which attracts young Loop-working professionals, theoretically could arise along any old streetcar strip in the city. But again, in practice that's an incremental thing. It can happen along Division in West Town or Damen in Bucktown because that's an incremental extension of Wicker Park or Lincoln Park. It doesn't spring up suddenly along East 79th in Grand Crossing.

^ Doesn't the north side have CPS? Doesn't seem to be an obstacle to development up there. Same with the additional cost of building?

You cannot possibly believe more CPS schools are being developed per students up on the north side.



^
^ I agree that progress is being made. Perhaps it's just frustrating driving through the south side and seeing so much despair, yet knowing that there is so much potential. I'd like to see change come faster, but what can you do?

It won't happen until people in those neighborhoods raise their children up as the beautiful beings they are and start from the family level up through Church, Businesses and local Politicians treating them like the treasure they are.

It won't happen until people in those neighborhoods raise their children up as the beautiful beings they are and start from the family level up through Church, Businesses and local Politicians treating them like the treasure they are.

^ That'll never happen.

Gentrification is the only answer for the south side. The great black metropolis is a pipe dream, IMO

Not to beat a dead horse with this discussion, guys (Mr. Downtown in particular), but I'll give you an example of how I view the city missing out in its development of the west/south sides.

Now I realize that the Midway Airport is not the "south side", but in principle it's still an area that suffers from lack of development (as far as I've observed--so pardon the slight change in subject here) despite the fact that a pretty sizeable airport is in the area. Where's the economic spillover for Chicago on that one? The suburbs seem to have capitalized on it, but not the city.

Many times when I've stayed in Chicago on the cheap, I've stayed in a complex of hotels on south Cicero (the west side of Cicero), about 8-9 blocks south of Midway Airport. My memory has faded, but I would estimate perhaps a complex of about 8-10 hotels and several restaurants, all thriving from what I've seen, and providing excellent shuttle service to the airport (and thus the Orange Line). This is a great development, and when I was too lazy or tired to go to the city I would walk to a nice little bar (Either a Ruby Tuesday's or an Applebees) which was always packed with out-of-towners, and meet various people.

But this wonderful complex is on the west side of Cicero, not the east side. It's in Bedford Park. And what do I see when I look on the east side of Cicero when driving up and down it? Empty green fields!

What's up with that?

And now we have neighborhood groups near Midway dictating to an Alderman that they don't want a complex of homes and 3-flats built, because it's too dense? What do you want to do, bankrupt the city? It's absurd..

Great transit center would be ideal for highrises.

I can picture a Optima Skokie-style development around there.

The east side of Cicero was partially purchased and demolished for the Crosstown Expressway, which was cancelled in the early 1980s. The only two portions still vacant are half-blocks in the 4300 and 4800 blocks. In both cases, they are only 125 x 594 (a little over 1.5 acres), not nearly enough room for a single motor inn--much less a complex of them.

Midway Hotel Center, on the other hand, occupies 35 acres of former industrial land. The developer could pick it up at a low cost, all at one time, and build out a self-contained group of limited-service hotels flying four different flags, with surface parking and a couple of restaurants that benefit from all the hotels. It's a development model you see all over the country at interstate exits, but these hotels probably fill 60 percent of their room nights with flight crews laying over. It wouldn't pencil out if the hotels were strung along Cicero, or if they had structured parking. In Bedford Park, they avoid a big city occupancy tax, and probably any number of hassles with inspectors and building codes.

Of all the hotels around O'Hare . . . only six are in the City of Chicago.

Here are my rambled thoughts about the SouthWest Side.

There is almost no connection between the Southwest Side (backbone is Archer Ave) and the West Side creates a big problem in my opinon. There is probably a mile or more buffer where I-55 and the South Branch River is at, maybe a key development plan in the future. Only if they can utilze the river turning it from the industrial sector to a commerical sector.

The problems with the South Side is the Highways that runs through dense neighborhood. I mean look at Bridgeport and Chinatown, dense neighborhoods (in the repects to the rest of the South Side), is destroyed by giant highways and railroad yards ramming into them. Sure, the railroad yards are decreasing in size, but this have the sense of sepration.

I mean is there such a barrier between LakeView with Lincoln Park or even with Oldtown. No. Compare that with Bridgeport, Pilsen, Chinatown, and Soth Loop, all seprated by railroads, expressways, giant industrialize waterways, etc. There is no unity on the southside like that in the NorthSide.
___________

Keep on going south on Cicero past Midway, there are huge big box Stores all along the border of Chicago from about 71st St. to about 80-something streets, along Cicero, while on the Chicago side, a huge suburban mall, industrial lots, etc.

Another examples of big-box stores on the border of Chicago, from 31st to 22nd street on Cicero Ave. I know both sides of Cicero Ave is in Cicero, but the back of the bigbox stores is Chicago.

Chicago is completely surrounded big box stores and is a fault of Chicago?

The great black metropolis is a pipe dream, IMO

I don't understand this comment. What does it mean?

I don't understand this comment. What does it mean?

^ It means that if anybody is holding out hope that Bronzeville as it once was 50 years ago is going to come back, we're wasting our time. Whatever gets built and whoever chooses to occupy it, let it happen. Tillman's dream of a "Blues district" on 47th street was a flop, and the sooner we stop dreaming the better.

^ It means that if anybody is holding out hope that Bronzeville as it once was 50 years ago is going to come back, we're wasting our time. Whatever gets built and whoever chooses to occupy it, let it happen. Tillman's dream of a "Blues district" on 47th street was a flop, and the sooner we stop dreaming the better.

Perhaps you may have missed just how organic city neighborhoods are....or how fluid they are. They all have cycles. So I cannot give up hope that neighborhoods that are down and out will not some day be "the" places to live.

But I believe we all know the cities needs to work on tools to help this process along and also to help shave off the bad cycles...so hoods don't go down as much.

Perhaps you may have missed just how organic city neighborhoods are....or how fluid they are. They all have cycles. So I cannot give up hope that neighborhoods that are down and out will not some day be "the" places to live.

But I believe we all know the cities needs to work on tools to help this process along and also to help shave off the bad cycles...so hoods don't go down as much.

^ That wasn't my point, or remotely close to it. But I've already made my points earlier on this thread, so I'm gonna go ahead and rest my case

My understanding was that the gentrification in Bronzeville has been in large part black gentrification. Is this not the case? If it is, those neighborhoods might indeed become a "black metropolis" in a certain sense, but not the center of working-class black culture they once were.

If I'm interpreting your comments right, though, you seem to be saying that you don't think there's any hope for the impoverished black population in Bronzeville (and by extension Chicago) and that we should give up trying to reinvigorate neighborhoods without displacement.

One thing that's easy to forget about the bygone days of Bronzeville is that the residents were not welcome to shop or recreate anywhere outside the Black Belt. So the glory days of having a complete business district along 35th or hotels and theaters along South Parkway were the side effect of a history we don't want to repeat.

But the question many of us have is why retail seems to be lagging way behind housing revitalization in The Gap, IIT area, and Oakland today. I suspect it's a frustrating combination of national retailers being wary of the unfamiliar, demographic data being several years out of date, and incompetence from Ald. Tillman. I really hate to suggest racism, but national credit retailers seem very underrepresented in black neighborhoods anywhere in the country, regardless of the population or household income.

Incidentally, I'm hearing anecdotal evidence that the revitalization north of Pershing is not entirely African-American. I think the 2010 Census will reveal a surprising number of young whites in The Gap, perhaps as high as 20 percent.

One thing that's easy to forget about the bygone days of Bronzeville is that the residents were not welcome to shop or recreate anywhere outside the Black Belt. So the glory days of having a complete business district along 35th or hotels and theaters along South Parkway were the side effect of a history we don't want to repeat.

But the question many of us have is why retail seems to be lagging way behind housing revitalization in The Gap, IIT area, and Oakland today. I suspect it's a frustrating combination of national retailers being wary of the unfamiliar, demographic data being several years out of date, and incompetence from Ald. Tillman. I really hate to suggest racism, but national credit retailers seem very underrepresented in black neighborhoods anywhere in the country, regardless of the population or household income.

Incidentally, I'm hearing anecdotal evidence that the revitalization north of Pershing is not entirely African-American. I think the 2010 Census will reveal a surprising number of young whites in The Gap, perhaps as high as 20 percent.

Your analysis is why UP is right. It is kind of a pipe dream to think that Bronzeville will be redeveloped into this bustling, thriving metropolis without making it appealing to other groups. It is possible to influence the character of the community by aknowledging its black historical roots but, to redevelop all of bronzeville or the mid-south side is just not economically possible as an entirely black community. There's just not enough middle class african american urban pioneers in the region interested in moving to the community. While there are many professional african americans settling into the neighborhoods of the mid south side, many more are choosing the suburbs because they want bigger homes and spacious laws. Most of my friends have choosen the suburbs over the city for the same reasons whites and other groups do (schools, affordability, and, spacious estates). There are also cultural differences. My experience working as an urban planner in part of that community has been that many african americans fear the word density. Many whites probably fear it too but, african americans view density differently than whites. Part of this fear is probably due to the horrible living conditions we have endured in major cities across the country (crowded, highrise ghettos). The media also portraits success as owning a large home in the suburbs with a nice car. Many young people, especially blacks in this country want this type of lifestyle. IMO a diverse fairly dense community is the only way to go. Higer density development near the lake would attract professionals of every race which will attract other amenities (entertainment, retail, restaurants, and jobs). This is also better for the city because it breaks down the ignorant racsist walls that exist in this city.

^ I think you hit the nail on the head. My problem is with the expectation that some sort of "black-themed" neighborhood has to get built in Bronzeville. I agree with respecting its history, but lets not forget that black professionals chose to leave Bronzeville. Creating something like a "Blues District" is really no less ridiculous than creating an Al Capone district or something of the like.

Let the neighborhood develop into whatever it's meant to become. That's something Tillman just plain would not accept.