So Ben and I checked out Chicago Green Drinks last night, a regular event put on by the Foresight Design Initiative. The event is intended to help people connect with others involved in issues of sustainability throughout the city, as well as to spark discussion on specific topics of sustainable and green design, usually done through a planned panel discussion.
Last night’s discussion had more of a social-justice bent. The subject was When Neighborhoods Evolve: Gentrification Issues in Chicago, and featured speakers from Claretian Associates, an affordable housing development nonprofit in South Chicago, who incorporates green technology in their buildings; Pilsen Alliance, a grass-roots organization mobilizing Pilsen residents to take leadership in their community and to work against gentrification; and the Chicago Rehab Network, an agency focused on advocating for affordable housing and aiding community developers (groups like Claretian) through training, research, and policy efforts.
I felt a little ignorant going into this, since I know that gentrification is a huge issue here in Hyde Park, but I’ve never really bothered to learn much about it beyond the mere understanding that the people in certain neighborhoods get displaced when others with more money start building nearby, that this is generally a negative process, and that tensions have existed between Woodlawn residents and the University of Chicago over precisely this for quite a long time.
I think for that reason, I found the comments by Alejandra L. Ibañez, Pilsen Alliance’s executive director, the most provocative. Having seen the impact of gentrification on her own neighbors, she was very clear about the issue not being one of discrimination, but rather one of market forces and local politics working together to the detriment of poorer citizens. A body of citizens in one neighborhood that has experienced divestment, watched businesses and other forms of financial capital leave the area, nonetheless sticks through and works hard to keep the community together. When at last others begin to take an interest again in the neighborhood, say because of it’s general location or because other neighborhoods nearby are beginning to be redeveloped as well, new buildings get put up: new condos, houses, businesses, etc. These buildings raise the general value of all the nearby property, which tends to drastically increase property taxes, and suddenly someone who has lived in the same neighborhood for decades finds they can no longer afford to live in the area on their salary, because the cost is too high. These residents are thus forced out of the neighborhood, away from their long-time homes, away from their jobs, etc. Even though they kept the neighborhood sustained for many years, and may have put in the initial work that then made it attractive to developers, they reap none of the benefits – such as more money being put into the school system – because they are forced out of the area.
And the point that she made rather insistently is that this happens regardless of race. Gentrification, she said, is not a race issue; it’s a class issue. It’s working-class families being displaced from their homes because housing ceases to be affordable when wealthier families move into the area, and because their income doesn’t increase despite the increase in prices around them. It happens to all sorts of families, regardless of race. There may be race issues involved in the process at different points; but primarily, it’s a problem of one class being displaced by another.
I think this contrasts pretty sharply with the rhetoric I have heard used in Hyde Park-Woodlawn discussions on gentrification. Frequently people have painted it in terms of black-white tensions, of racial discrimination, etc. But I think that I must agree with Alejandra. People are displaced whether or not those who replace them are black, white, Hispanic, whatever. It’s the fact that their incomes are so drastically different, and thus what is affordable is so drastically different, that is the key factor in why people are forced out of their neighborhoods. Maybe someone who has done more research on issues like this on the Southside would like to comment? (Maybe some of you folks who have taken the History of the Southside seminar at the UofC have something to say.)
So, all of that to say, our first experience at Chicago Green Drinks was pretty interesting, and we’re hoping to go back; if not regularly, at least for their Eco Transportation show coming up mid-August.
Thanks for this article, and thanks for attending Green Drinks. The issue of gentrification is indeed an important one, a concern that we in the sustainability community need to continually consider. We hope that Green Drinks sparks discussions on issues like this, discussions that continue even after the last drink is poured. Please know you are always welcome at Green Drinks, and we look forward to seeing everyone at the Eco Transportation Show.
I’ve deleted the comment that was recently posted above by “Ms. Ibanez’s truth teller”. I do not see my blog as a place just to complain about people; I think enough political blogs out there have this covered. While this does not mean that criticism of people is not allowed, (I have obviously made remarks about some of our country’s leaders), I consider it petty and dishonest to ‘rat’ on someone, particularly anonymously. If you’re going to shoot down a local leader, at least provide real discussion of what you think is problematic. (Ms. Ibanez was reported to live in Oak Park, not Pilsen, which the above commentator found troubling – but why? Is it wrong for a suburbanite to work on gentrification issues? Are there other sorts of ties to a neighborhood that can justify one’s political involvement beyond mere residence?) And for that matter, have the courage to identify yourself and your own blog, if you have one.
(To note: I’m not against anonymous commenting per se, but I think on many issues it can be damaging not to claim our own viewpoints. It detaches one from the consequences of one’s own thoughts and I think creates further unnecessary abstraction and alienation between someone and that which they’re discussing.)
We don’t mean to complains on your cool blog spots here but the developers in South Chicago are helping push up the price of homes that are leading to the tax increases and gentrification. The Claretians with their fat LISC checks are pushing plans to make South C green to sell it to the yuppies from up north. They talking about 250,000 to 300,000 for a home – that ain’t affordable for people in South C we barely making 25,000 a year – maybe for the peeps up north or upper east side but we ain’t got that kind of loot. Many of us are starting to see our rent jump up – most of our peeps rent. They pushing certs that we gonna have to pay for down the line as father Daley makes Chicago Yuppie Green – kicking out the Black, Brown and poor White – Since they started putting up their “affordable” criblets taxes have started popping up and they been working with the Popes and Neilly in the South C chambers to do things to make it harder for us who live there – like we got bike patrols giving tickets – we got community art projects from people who ain’t from the community – we got all these parking signs popping up that we have to pay to park in front of our own cribs now – we got all this green jazz going when our peeps need green for work, yet they ain’t giving us those jobs to make South C green – they bringing in their friends while our TIF tax money pays them.
southsideriffraff:
I don’t see your post as a ‘complaint’ (my mention of ‘complaining above’ was about a direct, anonymous attack on an individual, rather than discussion of an issue).
Thanks for sharing your experience about gentrification (which is the shorthand term I would use to talk about everything you described). And I think it’s important that there is organizing going on to deal with it. Personally, I think we need to make both neighborhoods and laws that place the basic need for humans to shelter and community over the desire of developers to earn profit. If we don’t create a new power structure that does that, we’re going to have this same problem over and over again, as we have had in Chicago for decades.