Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • New, New Urbanism

    Posted by Carl from Chicago on November 2nd, 2013 (All posts by )

    As a long time city of Chicago resident I have seen the immense growth of new buildings and new residents in areas near downtown which previously had been office buildings, warehouses, dilapidated structures, or simply abandoned.  From time to time when I am in an architectural bookstore I glance at books about “new urbanism” or various similar concepts that authors and “urban planners” use to overlay atop the actual growth of a city (or decline, in the case of other parts of Chicago).

    If you are from a smaller town or relatively slow moving US city and haven’t been overseas to see “real” growth somewhere like Hong Kong, China, or India, then Chicago’s growth over the last decade or so that I’ve lived near down is pretty astonishing.  In River North, where I live, literally dozens of high rise buildings > 15+ stories have been built and are filled to the brim with owners and renters.  The entire South Loop has been renovated not only with town homes and large buildings, but huge retail spaces like Target, Costco, and giant movie theaters.  While there were many restaurants in River North when I first moved here, we had to walk far and wide to find even a place open for a decent breakfast; now we have a dozen to choose from within 6-8 blocks.

    Since there are train tracks downtown for the Metra commuters which arrive from suburbs from all directions (except East, where the lake is) and many of these tracks are on ground level, the streets are cut up and there are sidewalks I used to take under viaducts with few people around.  Now, however, immense apartment buildings have popped up (over 40+ stories) and in the morning there is a huge population of well dressed professionals walking along these routes and sidewalks, where previously there was just debris and parking lots.  If I go to work late it is either single women walking dogs or nannies pushing single babies in strollers.

    There must be 50,000+ well heeled urban residents packed into this place, all arriving from somewhere else whether it is a suburb, another state, or another country.  None of them are poor – you can’t be – since rents are in the thousands and move up rapidly, and every new building coming up has more amenities than the competitors in order to attract residents.  The demography is very fluid because many of the condominium owners rent out their units, and then the newer buildings have been built as apartments since the real estate crash of 2008.

    If you are in Iowa or a rural area or even a city of 250,000, there are likely more eligible professionals in a single bar or restaurant in this area than there is in your entire city.  It is simply astonishing how fast the area has grown and how every square inch is taken up with clubs, restaurants, high end interior design, and the other “requirements” of the upwardly mobile professional who lives in a smaller condominium or rental unit.  Come out on a Friday or Saturday night it is a sight to be seen with everyone staying out late and careening from bar to bar tottering in high heels and smoking outside the door.

    What hasn’t been built, at least in my experience, is a single new school.  There is no investment in the “typical” infrastructure that you’d expect to see.  I have relatives in a far distant “exurb” that is struggling financially because they kept expanding schools as their population boomed, and when the boom stopped, they were stuck with excess capacity that could not be supported with their available property tax revenues (which also declined with the loss of value of real estate).  That sort of investment hasn’t happened here… not a single new school that I’m aware of on any sort of scale with a mass of wealthy residents in a very short time.

    There also have been no churches and almost no parks.  Parks are apparently a nice-to-have, because the city hasn’t created many new ones.  There is one called “Erie Park” in River North by the River but that’s about it.  The cost of a park in an area where you can put up a $100M building in a relatively small plot of land must be astonishingly high, and the city isn’t making those sorts of investments, apparently.  As far as churches, the ones that do exist (they must have seen some dark days in the 1960’s – 1980’s as the area emptied of residents and went to the dogs) seem to do a relatively brisk business in weddings and AA meetings (you can see them camped out on breaks, smoking and drinking coffee) and perhaps even picked up some new attendees.

    If the “new urbanism” and “urban planners” did anything to facilitate what is happening in Chicago, I don’t see their mark anywhere.  The buildings were put up with private capital, and only things that are profit-making have been built beside them, with pitifully few exceptions.  It is astonishing to me to see all of these well-heeled professionals packing every building, and new buildings literally go up every single day.  Traffic has gotten horrendously bad, but this doesn’t bother a lot of people who walk to work and / or take the “L” or even ride bicycles (although I think they are crazy to do that because the traffic seems so dangerous).  

    Someone from another country asked me if Chicago was as bad as it seemed on the newscasts.  I said that the statistics are true but there really are two cities; one prosperous, clean and full of new residents, and one that is facing terrible problems and overrun by crime.  The investment in just one building in River North is likely larger than the entire value of new housing / investments in some of these other districts; they are simply falling to pieces and being abandoned.  As you drive along the highway you can see buildings with a big red X in a sign by the door – this means that the buildings have been designated as abandoned and apparently this will prevent firefighters from losing their lives trying to go through these buildings when they (inevitably) catch on fire.

    Someone should write an objective book about River North and the tremendous growth here, and try to figure out what happened, and why.  It is the opposite of the Detroit story, although many aspects of the Detroit theory are happening in poorer districts in Chicago.  One key element, often missed, is the complete transition of people; literally no one who lives in River North, the West Loop, or the South Loop, today – lived there prior to gentrification or rebuilding from scratch.  No one.  Not a single one.  Cities do thrive or die on creative destruction, and the same people don’t make that transition.  The older people are priced out or displaced, and new, wealthy ones move in.  In other cases, like Detroit, people move away, and no one moves in (except in downtown where Dan Gilbert is trying a bit of the River North strategy with a small, high density area of professionals with high security).

    Cross posted at LITGM


    5 Responses to “New, New Urbanism”

    1. MikeK Says:

      I’ll take Orange County CA, myself. Another world. The Chicago I grew up in is gone forever. I used to know a radiologist who lived in the John Hancock building. He commuted by elevator.

    2. Jonathan Says:

      The neighborhood has everything necessary. You sleep in your condo or rental, work nearby with or near your friends, find a mate at work or in a local bar/restaurant/nightclub. Then if you want kids you move to a suburb with decent schools because there’s no alternative. It’s not necessarily a bad way to live, but it might be better if people who prefer to live downtown had better options that are currently available given the City’s zoning rules, business regulations and dysfunctional school system.

    3. Grurray Says:

      “he buildings were put up with private capital”

      The big difference between Chicago and Detroit is in Detroit all the money went towards urban blight/social justice boondoggles that Michael Kennedy wrote about in the other column.
      In Chicago, the Daleys set up TIF slush funds to funnel some of those taxpayers dollars to these developments.

    4. Mrs. Davis Says:

      See many baby strollers?

    5. T.S. Says:

      “The big difference between Chicago and Detroit is in Detroit all the money went towards urban blight/social justice boondoggles that Michael Kennedy wrote about in the other column.
      In Chicago, the Daleys set up TIF slush funds to funnel some of those taxpayers dollars to these developments.”

      To go Dickensian, Chicago is, more than any other American city, a tale of two cities (maybe even three). The downtown/main city core is exceptionally clean, safe, affluent and bustling. It’s the second largest downtown/city core in America, trailing only Manhattan.

      At the other end of the spectrum, large swaths of the South and West Sides are burned out, violent-in-the-extreme third world hellholes that are on par with the worst of Detroit (though they’re not nearly as depopulated and abandoned).

      It’s always been a bit of a challenge to convince people in other regions that Chicago isn’t the same kind of hollowed-out Rust Belt wasteland as Detroit (and to a lesser degree, Cleveland). Chicago got rave reviews from the national media who were dispatched to the Windy City to cover the Obama campaign in 2008. Set against the backdrop of a shimmering cosmopolitan cityscape on a 70 degree plus night in November, Obama’s Grant Park acceptance speech opened the eyes of many an elite opinion maker in NY/Boston/D.C. to the charms of Chicago.

      In no time, a wave of articles appeared in the prestige media that pushed Chicago as the newest “hotspot” in America. All more or less took the same line: “Chicago’s actually a clean, bustling metropolis … Who Knew!?!”

      But the gang war that’s raged on in Chicago’s worst neighborhoods for the last 3-4 years, and its attendant, headline-making homicide stats have essentially wiped out the positive press that the city enjoyed 5 years ago.

      So good luck convincing the rest of America (or for that matter, the rest of the world) that Chicago isn’t Detroit now. For the record, though, as long as you “stay out da hood,” you’ll be fine.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.