You have seen these units go vacant on Greenleaf and Estes for the last year. Someone buys one of these courtyard affordable rent buildings. Then, the water is shut and out go the renters.
The new owner adds new lights, drywalls, paints, he puts in new doors & windows. He works the system to add 30 new PIN numbers and poof, instant condos.
" As you know, what the Alderman wants - the Alderman gets." said Alderman Moore at last nights map zoning meeting at Loyola fieldhouse.
When asked why this is happening at a meeting, Alderman Moore blames it on the republicans. Was that right Alderman Moore? Somehow I don't believe the republicans knew about this building and you didn't know anything about these stealth condo units.
You said you know the ward like the back of your hand. Couldn't you have warned us about these stealth condos with a infomercial?
21 comments:
What is the deal with the term stealth condos? Craig, are you attemting to say that something illegal or underhanded is going on here?
You use the term condo as if we were talking cold war politics. Don't you in fact live in one of these sneaky condos?
I'd love to see a poll of all those here who regularly contribute. Home owner or Renter and for how long.
I of course live in the park under a tree!
Oh yeah I almost forgot. Joe blaming the Republicans for the condo craze is just as funny as Craig gettin the business from the SSA guy and the cops on Morse.
Man I love this place...
In response to Charlie, I now own a condo here and have been in the neighborhood since May. I used to live on Eastlake Terrace between Howard and Rogers in the early through mid 90s. Back then I NEVER would have considered buying in this neighborhood. My roommates and I were constantly harassed by gang bangers and I was once shot at.
When my wife and I were married last year we started looking around in Lincoln Square for a place to buy, we realized 2 things right away. We couldn't afford it and the neighborhood was starting to fill up with the kind of snobby, Starbucks and BMW crowd that don't talk to their neighbors, walk 4 abreast down the sidewalk and won't get out of your way, and knock kids down to get to the last open seat on the train.
When we started looking in Rogers Park we found things we really liked:
Affordable prices for quality construction.
People talked to their neighbors on the street. People would come up and talk to us while we waited for our realtor.
Some of the best little mom and pop restaurants with all kinds of food. We are always finding hidden treasures up and down Clark, Howard, and Devon.
Now, I am a little torn when people get mad about the gentrification of the neighborhood. I like the diversity here and want it to remain so. On the other hand, I know that with more home OWNERS in the neighborhood the more TLC will be given to yards, it attracts businesses and services that I currently have to go elsewhere for, and more revenue is generated for public works, policing and schools.
I am not a city planner and therefor don't know what the answer is. Hopefully, we can strike a balance between the 2.
Michael K
I wholeheartedly agree. We live in a fixer-upper 2-flat as if you couldn't guess that.
forgot to say we own the 2-flat!
Condo conversions are not the only reason why renters might be priced out of a neighborhood in an American city. Downzoning in cities in favor of the preservation of single family homes may also impact the prices that local renters pay. There are solutions other than demonizing the creation of housing that middle class people can afford to buy, but those remedies are complicated, require tremendous political will and don't always work out in the long term for the groups they are supposed to help (e.g. rent control). The developers are just responding to economic conditions in this country that incent rampant speculation in the housing market. Landlords in Chicago are perfectly free to do the same. In short, it's a political problem.
In the meantime, I'm getting a little fed up with the obvious contempt of those lucky enough to own those big houses on big lots so crucial to the "character" of RP for those of us who can't and will never be able to afford them, but still want to own our home in the city of Chicago. Every community meeting I attend in RP is drenched in this kind of sentiment - the creation of condos is "an assault". But again, there are other remedies to the burdens that gentrification places on long time owners, but effecting the kind of policy that protects long time owners from, say, unreasonable property taxes, is hard to accomplish. Much easier to blame the condos. Given the realities of the housing market in this country, exactly where are the young and the middle class supposed to buy in cities now? The market conditions that allowed you to be middle class and buy those houses are long gone and condos aren't the cause, just the symptom. Believe me, I'd love to have a private backyard in the city too.
Another point the low density crowd routinely ignore is the link between the presence of a certain critical density of middle income owners and the creation of the kind of pedestrian friendly service and retail development that would benefit a wide cross section of the residents of an urban community. Bash Lakeview all you like, but during the eight years I lived there I didn't need to own a car to lead a normal life, which was good, since I could not afford one. The first car I ever owned in the last 20 years, I bought when I moved up here, after many months of resisting. Too bad for those who can't just drive to Evanston or Edgewater, right?
I am also dismayed by the way people up here rely on cliches about other neighborhoods to rationalize problems up here. Michael K. says he didn't move to Lincoln Square because of the "snobby" people or because he couldn't afford it? Be honest, if you could have afforded it you would have bought there - Starbucks and BMWs notwithstanding. RP doesn't have a monopoly on being down to earth, friendly, or any other positive social behavior. Sorry to shatter your illusions about yourselves, but you are a pretty us and them crowd. In fact, people here often display a sense of entitlement over issues that other Chicago neighborhoods have at worked out in a more socially equitable way. Don't believe me? Here's an illustrative example. Just go down to the lake and count all the off leash dogs running around, despite the high numbers of residents who are openly terrified of them. At least Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Uptown, Wicker Park, Bucktown and Edgewater and many others neighborhoods I'm sure have scraped up enough community good will and sense of compromise to build dog parks and enforce leash laws.
Nico's mom,
You may be right. I lived in the Lincoln Square neighborhood for a several years and when I wanted to buy in my neighborhood and found I had been priced out by newcomers there was a lot of resentment. I felt that since I had lived there when it was still a bit shady, I had some entitlement. I probably demonize the folks a bit. I am sure that is how some folks up here feel about me which is why I mentioned my mixed feelings about gentrification. It seems I was gentrified out of my neighborhood and now here I am doing the same to those even less fortunate. It's not pleasant to think of yourself as the bad guy so I probably do chat up how much more noble my neighbors are.
Oh. I almost forgot. It is my understanding that we once had a dog park at the corner of Ashland and Fargo(which is why the small park is completely fenced in) next to the El but it was closed down because gang bangers were letting vicious fight dogs run amok. Sad.
Thanks for those comments, Michael K - I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I really appreciate and agree with your comments and I'm glad to hear the point of view of someone who, like me, recently bought here.
I am just so frustrated by some of the comments I hear at these public forums, especially the stuff where RP is compared to other neighborhoods. "Lakeview" becomes the trope which stands in for everything a small but vocal group of people think should never happen here and we're all just supposed to accept that it is because they have everyone's best interests at heart. Someone trots out the "Lakeview, Lincoln Park boo hiss" rhetoric in a public meeting or speech and everyone else is just supposed to shut up, or else reveal themselves for the greedy, snobby, intolerant scum they really are. Heaven forbid we would admit we wish our community was like "Lakeview" in any way, shape or form! This kind of talk is dependent on all kinds of distortions, cliches, and sterotypes of course...
Don't get me wrong - I will never argue the aesthetic merits of the cinderblock. Cinderblock buildings are the four plus ones of the future. But the way to prevent ugly, out of context, poorly built structures is to change and enforce the building codes, create housing design codes (which many American and European cities have), implement zoning which regulates height, set backs, green space etc. etc.
If long time owners are worried about their tax bills then they ought to lobby elected officials for changes to the code - there are many many good arguments for changing the way property taxes in Chicago are assessed and many organizations trying that do just that. If long time residents are concerned about affordable housing then they should lobby for legislation that mandates and incents these. Residents who are concerned about the larger social, political and economic forces that undermine a decent standard of living for ordinary people in this country - well more power to you, you have a lifelong project ahead and I hope you succeed where others have failed.
But blaming those of us who bought into RP later than you and can't afford the kind of housing you'd like to see when you look out the window of your nice big house or charming two flat for making your tax bills go up, displacing low income people, or even taking "your" parking space, is not the answer; it's a cheap evasive tactic, nothing more.
Quite right Nico's mom. Lakeview is totally over-crowded and is losing some of it's character but it does have a lot of amenities that I'd like to have here one day. I do not have a car so getting certain things I need can be challenging with so few shops to choose from within walking distance. I like a lot of the little restaurants in our nighborhood but if I want to take my wife out for a special occasion I find myself on a bus or a train again.
I am really happy that a nice neighborhood Pub has opened around the corner from me on Jarvis and by the reception it is getting they are sure to become a neighborhood institution. I don't know about you, but it has been my experience that local shops and pubs are a great source of information about neighborhood goings on.
I don't want our neighborhood to turn into another Lakeview but I don't want it to remain isolated from the rest of the city either.
I have to say that the anti-development and save this old house/building commentary on this blog is a little distressing and confusing. On the one hand, folks protest the city attempting to take over a police person's house yet in the next breath the same folks deplore that a private individual has chosen to sell their property to a devloper and that such "must be stopped." Basically, folks are saying that private property sales can only be done under conditions they approve. This flies in the face of freedom and liberty and is fairly socialist -- which is but the middle point on the slippery slope to fascism. Central planning by the few on behalf of the greater is fascist, even if it is well intentioned.
Same folks want to get rid of the gangs and the drug sellers and users and litterbugs and the tenements. But they object to the creation of middle income housing that brings more law-abiding citizenry to the community whose presence and foot traffic will be the eventual demise of all of the above (since, obviously, the police and the alderman can't do it).
Then, same group (generally speaking), complains about rising cost of housing. But they don't want the tenements (which are certainly cheap housing).
For a brief moment in reading all the commentary over the last few days I found myself actually feeling sorry for Joe Moore (and only Craig loathes Joe more than I do). The lot of us sound like a bunch of schizophrenic lunatics. Actually, crazy people are probably easier to deal with if only for their consistency in behavior.
You simply can't have it all ways. RP houses do cost a certain amount, plus the rising cost of property taxes and home upkeep. It takes a certain kind of person to even live in RP, and the number of people who are willing to pay going rates for single family homes is limited while the number of people willing to pay below market rates for less expensive condo housing is larger (check out the classifieds and watch how long it takes properties of $500k or more to sell). My husband and I and many others like us are a good case in point: we were willing to be urban warriors in 1991 when we bought here because we bought cheap. We would not be willing to spend $500-$700,000 today -- which is pretty much the going rate for a single family home -- to be urban pioneers. Obviously there are some people who will but that pool is a small one. A carpenter my husband works with has just bought a condo on Jarvis and Greenview. He and his wife and baby will have a nice place to live, build some equity, and they'll be urban pioneers because of the lower cost of housing. This is a good thing (btw, said carpenter is several minorities and comes from a very poor family where most members are in jail on drug charges). The very kind of person we presumably want to see be able to afford housing and live in RP is able to afford decent housing -- a minority, disadvantaged person with a wife and kid -- a family. But to read this blog it seems that affordable housing of this kind for this family is objectionable.
Could we afford to buy our house in RP today? It would be tight. Do I feel bad that we might find it tough to buy a single-family home in RP today? No. Life is about change. Communities change, times change. In the mid-1980s I lived in a ghetto in Washington, D.C. I was regularly stopped by the police going to and from my home for my skin color (the only reason a white woman would be in that 'hood would be to buy drugs). Today I could not afford the rent in that area. Such is life. Are we protesting changes that are truly bad or are we protesting change because we don't like change (unless it's the kind we like)?
Would I be happy if my neighbors sold to developer? Probably not but they have lived in RP for 30-odd years and suffered the ups and downs (and it's been more down than up) and if a developer offered them good money who the hell am I to tell them they can't have it simply because I don't like developers or condos or whatever? Who am I to put limits on the return they get from their real estate investment, their contribution to the community, and their tenure? Who am I to infringe on their freedoms? If I don't like it I can sell my home!
We have choices in life and those of us posting here, largely, have a lot more choices than many people, regardless of our net worth. We can live in RP or not. We can help put pressure on the police to stop the crime because we have the luxury of time. We can encourage our political leadership to help us push the community in a certain direction because we have the luxury of time and/or intelligence or education to understand issues and be involved. But along with choice comes responsibility -- the responsibility to think through our demands and work with those who are willing to invest in our community in a coherent fashion. We must also accept that it's virtually impossible to central plan a community without creating the functional equivalent of a gated community where we end up with limits on everything from house color to where you can walk your dog. The views of this goup of 10 people may not match the views of that group of 10 other people. One of the most attractive aspects of RP to us all those years ago was the "live and let live" attitude that pervaded the community. Were we wrong about it? Was it only "live and let live" when people were living according to some group's views?
For approximately three decades virtually no one has been willing to invest in RP (which is part of the reason that housing has been so cheap here until recently -- very few even wanted to live here). Now there is willingness. Regardless of the reason (and contrary to some assertions that the profit motive is a bad one, it isn't -- we all do things for profit), we have developers and a few brave businesses willing to come here. Instead of fighting them and simply protesting their mere existence, we should work with them to press for more park space, more greenery, more parking for the incoming cars, more security, a few more low-income set asides, building design elements, etc.
Simply getting all up in arms that X will be demolished for Y is reactionary. Let's see what Y is, and see if we can get some improvements if we believe it has some shortcomings. But let's not toss out Y because we object to the mere idea of Y.
Will condos be the death of RP? None of us knows. I tend to think not but acknowledge that I have no idea. My view has long been that RP has suffered for a dearth of private property ownership vs. rental/transient residents so I tend to think that housing owned by its residents is more good than bad (even if I'm not big on the type of housing). One thing I can say with certainty is that this neighborhood will be vastly different by the time we're dead, just as it is now vastly different from the way it was in 1948 when it was annexed by the city. No doubt the citenzry of 1948 had plenty to say about the state of RP in the 1970s and 1980s. When you talk to older people who have lived in RP for decades you hear a lot of them say that they are mostly thrilled with the current development. They have seen this neighborhood at its worse and, likely, in their view, what we have now is WAY better than where RP has been.
Pamela,
Thank you for being so eloquent. I couldn't agree more.
That does seem troubling, however, the phrase seems to get thrown around a lot. Isn't it possible that the developer followed the letter of the law? You can't fault someone for following minimum requirements. Science tells us that energy will always follow the path of least resistance. I think that jumping to conclusions about developers who did no wrong is dangerous. Reflect on lessons learned from "The Boy Who Cried, "Wolf!"" Don't you think people with legitimate gripes will be dismissed if every action taken by every developer is treated as scandal?
By the way, I am starting a discussion on my own blog (Apologies to Craig. I am not trying to rob you of your constituents) that is devoted to problems regarding development. It is just getting started and much of it deals with issues unique to my building but I hope that if others view it they may have some input on the problems we've been having and can give me a little advice. Thank you.
I'd rather see us model after Andersonville than Lakeview any day. There are plenty of conveniences in Lakeview, but all the small quaint coffee shops and neighborhood haunts of yesteryear are long gone.
I don't own a car either and I manage just fine renting one when needed. And I am glad to see most people seem to agree on the cinderblock issue.
again Pamela- calling the "lot of us" schizophrenic- please speak for yourself. These are complex issues and I see all this here as healthy debate and discussion for everyone.
Like Craig, I call things as I see them. I try not to make personal attacks (except on Joe Moore who gets paid by my tax dollars to take my personal attacks). Referring to behaviors by posters as crazy is not a personal attack but a description on the commentary. And it is healthy debate.
We do seem to have consensus that we would rather see RP look like Edgewater than, say, Lakeview. Great. Then I hope everyone who makes said comment frequents, frequently and often, Ennui, Heartland, Cafe Suron, Morse Cafe, Sweet Ocassions, the Romanian deli on Clark, No Exit, the Hispanic bodegos and shops on Clark, etc. Presumably we are all walking our talk as much as possible. I note the shoe store on Sheridan didn't make it; nor did the pet shop just north of it a few years ago. While it would be nice to have an Alderman who encouraged more of this business (and helped protect and advance it once it appears) short of that it's up to us consumers to prove to small business that RP residents are very supportive.
I agree with you Thomas. My point is that with good planning we might reign in developers that are not building in the community's best interest. I would hate to hamstring development altogether when it is necessary to our community.
It is unfortunate that population density is the sole thermometer for where money is distributed in Chicago, but how can we beat the machine? The west side is terribly underserved as is the far west and north. When you have blocks that are vacant you are sure to find problems. Maybe we need to change our policing policy to patrol the under-populated areas.
Margot,
I am sorry to hear about your building being sold. I have been in your position before and I know it's hard dealing with the fainancial and personal strain. I think one thing that we forget to address is that this problem is not something we have control of at the ward level. It is city wide. Hell, it's nation wide. There is a reason that people are flocking to buy here. They can't afford to buy anywhere else in the city! Everyone wants to take advantage of the low interest rates. It seems like everyone I know in the city is suddenly a real estate agent. I bought here because I was sick of paying astronomical rent when I could buy a place and have a similar mortgage payment. Sure, I could have bought a place in the suburbs. But then I would have had to buy a car (I haven't even had a valid license in 7 years)and spend hours everyday in traffic. Plus, I would have had the added pain of not being able to tell my house from my neighbor's. I don't know if you've been to Schaumburg lately but every time I get out past the airport, I get lost. I don't want to have a parking lot for the Container Store for a back yard either. I like living in the city and plan on staying here for a long time. I think most people who frequent this site have the same feelings. In closing, I don't know what the solution is. It's a big system and very hard to change. If it's any condolence, at least you know that there are some of us in the community that know what the problems are and are trying to make sure that those holding the reigns of power hear about them too.
Thomas, I agree with you that communities should have the right to get together and set standards; in fact, we do have that right, even if we won't always get our way in a context of so many competing interests. I think Michael Harrington's comments are rather to the point. The law says 120 days notice but there is documentation that the law is not being followed. So who's responsible for enforcing those laws? It seems to me that the Alderman has some leverage there...so what's he doing about it? It's not like these developers have lots of other places in the city to go at this point to exploit the middle income market segment. I think if we could just achieve "minimal compliance" we'd be doing a lot better than we are now. Expecting developers or landlords to go the extra mile unless there are big carrots and sticks is just plain unrealistic, despite our conviction that good behavior is it's own reward. Again, who's in a position to wield those carrots and sticks in RP (the initials JM come to mind...so what's he doing about it?) That's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Joe and company should be doing to support good development in RP - it's really the very least. Okay, so he doesn't - well, what are we going to do about it?
As for Margots dilemma...I have been in that boat and it sucks - it really does. I do understand - I rented all my life until two years ago. I have always lived in large cities and everyplace I have ever lived has become a place I probably couldn't afford now, to rent or buy. The laws that protect renters in Chicago are not all they should be, but there are remedies for issues like non-maintenance, lack of enforcement of notice to terminate leases, etc., but lots of folks don't know where to go to get the help they need and are reluctant to play hardball with their landlords. Margot, you may already know about these resources, but just in case you don't, you might get some useful information here: www.renters-rights.com and www.chicagoareahousing.org
The relationship between condo conversions and your rent increases is far from clear. The rental market in Chicago has been pretty bad (for landlords) in Chicago for many years, because the interest rates have been so low and some traditional barriers to ownership, like high down payments, have been eliminated by new loan products set up to take advantage of the active market for better or (probably) worse. Landlords can try to get more than the market value on an apartment - anyone who has rented in Chicago has seen how what you get for the money is all over the place even in the same neighborhood. In a slow rental market it is worth it to try to negotiate with your landlord about rent increases, especially if you pay on time, etc. They don't have to accept your counter offer, but it doesn't hurt to try. Negotiating a longer lease at the outset can sometimes work too. Negotiating will require that you keep up on what's going on in the rental market, prices and also vacancy rates, and all the laws that impact renters, which is probably wise for anyone renting in a large city. I'm sure you probably know all this stuff, but I didn't for a long time, so I offer it just in case.
As far as your current building is concerned, you have read in these comments that the law says they have to give you 120 days notice - I am assuming that is true, but you should confirm it for yourself. If I were you, I would be looking into my rights NOW. You may not be able to stop the building from being turned into condos, but at least you'll know what they are supposed to be doing and what you can do about it if they don't.
It is a very hard truth that most cities do not protect moderate income renters from market forces, and those that do (e.g. rent control) often end up hurting lots of tenants to benefit a lucky few. It is a real problem, no doubt about it.
Post a Comment