There are empty lots south and west as well. Develop them all. This is not “clearing out black people”. This is providing housing and opportunity, and people of all races and ethnicities will respond. Right now the alternative is violence and drugs and despair.
@JBStillFlying On the ground, there’s a lot less violence (or drugs, or despair) than you’d think. Woodlawn is not Washington Park or Englewood. Several new initiatives are aiming to revitalize the neighborhood - one church is running a program for aspiring entrepreneurs in Woodlawn that’s seen enrollment jump in the last few years, while another has been training job-seekers since 2011 - and a couple of new developments promise to bring more retail spaces to the commercial corridor on Cottage Grove. I don’t think the situation is so bleak that it’s wild-west construction or nothing.
That said, new development would definitely be a plus, but there are considerable reservations among locals. The concern many people have isn’t about development driving out residents by bulldozing their apartments. Rather, locals are worried that rents/property taxes will rise and current residents won’t be able to afford the cost of living. Perhaps more significantly, they feel the gains of gentrification will mostly go to people outside the community - with little room for small businesses owned by members of the community to carve out a niche - and this will result in an enduring flow of wealth out of the community. With most of the empty lots gone, and property values rising, it’ll be difficult to start a business with minimal capital (as some residents have done, taking advantage of low land prices) and one path to the middle class will be out of reach for most people in Woodlawn. If new development under these conditions produces permanent jobs, most of the resulting earnings will head back out via big-box retailers and national franchises. It’s a valid concern, IMHO; if Woodlawn’s redevelopment isn’t properly managed, it could result in few benefits for current residents.
@Sam-I-Am As for the lots, some are vacant and haven’t been claimed - the city is actually selling a fair number for a nominal amount and a promise to develop the land (link: http://chicago.curbed.com/2017/2/2/14476244/chicago-vacant-lots-for-sale-cook-county). Others are owned by real-estate investors, who are waiting for property values to rise so they can flip the properties or develop them and turn a tidy profit. Of course, this makes it that much harder for the neighborhood to develop while land values are low.
“Woodlawn is not Washington Park or Englewood.” - was definitely including Wash. Park when I said “west”.
"That said, new development would definitely be a plus, but there are considerable reservations among locals. The concern many people have isn’t about development driving out residents by bulldozing their apartments. Rather, locals are worried that rents/property taxes will rise and current residents won’t be able to afford the cost of living. Perhaps more significantly, they feel the gains of gentrification will mostly go to people outside the community - with little room for small businesses owned by members of the community to carve out a niche - and this will result in an enduring flow of wealth out of the community. "
- A business district can revitalize a community because they pay the taxes that poor residents cannot. Yes, property taxes increase - because wealth in the community increases. How can it not spill out to the residents? Some will be able to participate as entrepreneurs, others as employees, still others will benefit from the increased public services that will come about, including more money for the public schools . . .even when outsiders come into a community to set up shop, they spend money in the community! Renters, of course, will see an increase in rents. This is the effect of gentrification and the south side of Chicago is not the only area of the city that has seen this (check out the North side, for instance, which brought in tax-paying families with young children, led to a huge improvement in the public schools, new restaurants and shops . . .all in areas that were considered unlivable for most folks in the early 90's). But those who own will see their residence increase in value. If it's a primary asset, then that's a very good thing! Those who are very low income might be able to move to newer, cleaner, safer, and nicer section 8 housing in the area. So it can be done in a way that benefits everyone and doesn't redistribute from those within to those outside.
I am not familiar with the nature of the unspoken agreement between U. of C. and Woodlawn, so maybe someone can chime in if I’m wrong. But my thoughts are that the University can and will play the long game, and let Woodlawn develop to the point where University construction south of 61st becomes a natural next step of Woodlawn’s re-development. The community groups will continue to push back, but it will be harder to argue against this construction due to long-time residents being priced out and leaving, an escalating number of new developments being announced, and the economic benefits from the Obama Library and golf course (I believe many are underestimating the speed and extent to which Woodlawn is about to change). All of this may take more than 10 years, and in the meantime, the University will continue to buy prime vacant land and sit on it. In the longer term (20-30 years), Woodlawn as a neighborhood will almost certainly integrate with the U. of C. community. In the shorter term, (2-3 years), we will likely see MAC Properties or a rival company announce a high-rise geared primarily toward the U. of C. crowd, and its location will make clear where the next phase of U. of C. development will occur. My guess would be southeast of campus.
On a related topic, have people heard about the new developments west of campus toward Washington Park? The U. of C. had been on a buying spree in the area, ahead of the Obama Library proposal. They have also been partnering with artist Theaster Gates for a few years now, most recently to open the Arts Incubator, and a few new proposals were just announced:
Garfield Green Line (55th St.) is also being redeveloped in a $50 million project ($25 million from federal government), in partnership with U. of C. and the Gates project mentioned above. This makes sense because Garfield is going to see a lot more traffic once the Obama Library opens up. If you are coming from anywhere in Chicago, and taking the L, then you will take the Green Line to Garfield. The 55 Bus (which picks up right outside) will be re-routed to include extra stops, including the library.
So you have increased foot traffic to that area, along with new venues to attract artists. This is a classic gentrification scenario. I think it will be moderately successful. Here is an article on Oakland’s gentrification, where many of the conditions that apply there don’t quote apply in Chicago.
Why would you get off at 55th and Prairie when you could get off on 63rd and Cottage Grove? The Obama library’s going to be between 60th and 63rd on Stony Island - about a mile from Cottage Grove, and there is the 63 bus if you don’t want to walk. Regardless, I expect the library to encourage people to take the Metra Electric, like the MSI does.
Anyways, I’m a bit appalled at all the people cheerleading gentrification. Enormous upheaval for the residents of Woodlawn…for what? A nice street the university can use to attract students? It’s the onus of the UChicago community to prevent the administration from embarking on another destructive “neighborhood renewal” campaign like the one they did in the 60s with the blessing of Mayor Daley.
Edit: That said - I don’t disagree with @JBStillFlying that there are many benefits to attracting new businesses to the area. However, it needs to be done in a way that does not force the residents out so they can benefit, too. Adding more section 8 housing is vital.
My fear is that university knows that many, many people equate “safety” and “don’t see many Black people around” (unless, of course, they are wearing UCPD uniforms). I don’t think they will see it much in their interest to keep the residents of Woodlawn around, and many benefits to pricing them out. It is, again, the onus of the UChicago community to force their hand.
You are right about people getting off at 63rd or taking the ME, but realistically U. of C. is going to want to promote getting off at the 55th station to boost traffic to the arts center and the surrounding area. And they have the ability to convince lawmakers to do so. One possibility is the CTA launching a bus with a nonstop route between the Garfield station and the Obama Library. Or a public-private or private-private partnership involving the Obama Foundation and the U. of C. Another benefit is that by using a direct route from 55th to the library would involve driving through the Midway Plaisance, which would help the University market itself and boost its association with the Obama Library.
Also, I believe the new development on 63rd and Cottage Grove is section 8 housing. And there will be plenty of retail space. http://www.poah.org/property/illinois/woodlawn-station
63rd will be the new 53rd.
Obama Library + 63rd Metra + Hyde Park Day school + 55th/Cottage Grove Green Line + Arts Block
A lot of the lots between Midway and 63rd are owned by the government, the university and Apostolic Church of God (I think) so it is going to happen. I don’t see why it would be so wrong to let others come live in Woodlawn - more people means more economic activity, a generally safer community and more opportunities for jobs and better funded schools.
I think this is more about the who and how gentrification is executed. With the community pressuring the city government and the church having enough economic clout, I think that the residents are well represented. And its not like the community is weak or don’t have a voice, the fact that they won the trauma center issue, speaks of how much power they have to put forth their priorities.
The whole detente where the university would not build south of 63rd amounts to decades of missed opportunity for Woodlawn… they should have continued to engage the university. Frankly, Alinsky did them a disservice by not coming up with a more nuanced solution.
@TheBanker I have written elsewhere on this thread how impressed I am with that development. It’s redevelopment done right - affordable, safe, and clean. It has improved Cottage Grove Ave infinitely without taking the neighborhood away from its inhabitants. If the development of Woodlawn is all done in that model, it would be absolutely wonderful.
I don’t think the university will try to link Garfield and the Obama Library. It just doesn’t make much sense - I think they will let the “arts district” stand on its own. People do go to Currency Exchange Cafe and the Arts Center, even if they are isolated.
@FStratford More people means more economic activity, a generally safer community, and more opportunities for jobs and better funded schools…but for who? Students? Young professionals? The people living there now? Two of those groups improve the university’s bottom line and prestige, and one of those scares off suburban parents touring the school. The university has not, historically, shown itself very willing to consider the residents of the South Side anything but last in making its institutional decisions. They only acquiesced to the trauma center after significant resistance from the UChicago community.
Once again, the fight isn’t for or against economic development of Woodlawn. It’s for or against the systematic removal of Woodlawn’s residents for the university’s own gain. They’ve done it before, and I sincerely doubt they’ll take the residents of Woodlawn’s needs into account if the UChicago community doesn’t fight them tooth and nail on it, like we did for the trauma center.
Excellent discussion on the development South of campus. I hope that somehow the Obama library becomes the project that will spur great improvements throughout the Southside. Every time I drive through the area I marvel at the area’s “great bones” and its amazing potential.
But really the area already is a great area. It just needs to become safer. If you can solve that issue, in my opinion, the area could explode. Businesses etc will clamor to locate in the area.
It’s a difficult problem with deep roots.
@HydeSnark - I’m surprised you don’t see more integration as a way out of poverty for so many African Americans on the south side. Surely you are not a fan of segregation?
No, presumably HS is just a person who doesn’t think that whiter is inherently better or somehow uplifting. The terms of integration matter deeply.
Of course the terms matter but urban planners are perfectly capable of employing best practices and learning from past mistakes. And by the way those past mistakes often involved focusing on skin color and corralling them into certain areas to keep them away from other groups. Bringing in taxpaying businesses and retail to any impoverished community is a net positive. Worry less about skin color now and more about plain old economic development in the impoverished areas and you will find that those groups who have been suffering the most and the longest will benefit significantly. Enterprise is not a defacto racist endeavor. However, development that keeps African-Americans overwhelmingly confined to one portion of the city definitely is.
Planners, “economic developers”, community organizers will not work. What will work is (somehow) making the neighborhoods mostly safe, trying to make the schools safe and productive. This is what government must, must do. The several hundred thousand (millions?) of people in the neighborhoods will take it from there. Government does have an ancillary role perhaps in the areas of tax incentives, etc. but they must perform the basics right.
I would think that alumni and current students from the University of Milton Friedman would understand this.
@JBStillFlying Of course not! I think we’re in agreement that the best outcome would be a more integrated Woodlawn with more shops and less empty lots. The point we’re disagreeing on is that you think the University’s focus on the neighborhood will lead to that - I’m considerably more pessimistic and fear that the University’s focus on Woodlawn will lead to a Woodlawn with more shops and less empty lots - but with completely new (and richer) residents.
If you take a low income neighborhood, kick everyone who’s low income out, and import the rich, that isn’t a victory for the neighborhood in my eyes. I would be less wary if it [hadn’t happened before](Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960 - Arnold R. Hirsch - Google Books).
Kimdky create you own thread for your urban planning discussion …
@HydeSnark the conditions and socio-economic trends from 55-75 years ago are a bit different from today. Hopefully there is no need to repeat efforts of the past.
@Chrchill, totally agree; however, UChicago’s continued “meteoric rise” will obviously depend on how all that urban planning turns out. 
Birds of a feather tend to flock together, an old altruism that is still valid, and I don’t mean by race, I mean by socio-economic condition. Honestly I have no idea how your going to gentrify an area without driving out the poor as rents/income rise. Are there good examples in other cities that Chicago can follow? The Obama library will be the biggest driver for gentrification over the next 10 years in Woodlawn, UChicago will be riding right behind that bulldozer.
"Are there good examples in other cities that Chicago can follow? "
Chicago’s own Near North, as described in the wiki on Cabrini Green (thankfully demolished):
“The Near North Side site formerly home to the William Green projects has been undergoing major redevelopment since the late 1990s, resulting in a combination of upscale high-rise buildings and row houses, with the stated goal of creating a mixed-income neighborhood, with some units still being reserved for public housing tenants. Controversy regarding the implementation of such plans has arisen, though slated redevelopment plans are now set to move forward following the September 2015 settlement of a longstanding civil lawsuit.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini–Green_Homes
It’s amazing to see what’s been happening on the north side of the city the past 20-25 years.
@JBStillFlying Are they, though? We have a community considered an urban “blight” filled with many poor, Black residents, a rapidly expanding university concerned about its image knocking on its doors, and a healthy dose of structural racism. Sounds very similar to 50s Hyde Park to me.
@CU123 Sure, [it’s been done](Cully Commercial Corridor and Local Street Plan | Portland.gov). One way that’s worked is through heavy regulation of the housing market. The city and the neighborhood got together and agreed on a plan that would allow new developments to be built without reducing the number of affordable units available and were very careful to plan new developments that would benefit the residents first and foremost.
Jane Jacob’s wrote extensively on the need of neighborhoods to be able to speak for itself. If the residents are not included in the discussion of their neighborhood’s future, the neighborhood dies (you may recall Jacobs was one of the loudest voices against running a highway through the Lower East Side).
“Birds of a feather tend to flock together” does not justify anything other than the attempt of the guilty to wash their hands of their own guilt. The poor aren’t forced to live in slum like conditions with little hope for the future or control over their own lives because that’s what they want, they do it because our system is set up to keep them there. And if the neighborhood improves - well, I guess they just don’t deserve to live there anymore, because they are nothing more than second class citizens. And if you’re Black and poor - you are treated as nothing but a “problem”, as Dubois pointed out.