|A question of ethics. But where will they live?||Kristin|
Aug 26, 2002 4:46 PM
|As I delve deeper and deeper into my quest for knowledge about this new property my thoughts are turning around some secondary issues.
Make no doubt about it, these are rehabbed properties that are directed at a new market. Though still reasonably priced, you can bet the farm that no former residents qualified for the mortgages. Where did those former residents go? Who knows. As long as they're gone, I'm happy. Kind of. I mean, I don't want high crime to continue and I'm all for progress and growth--especially where I live--but I don't want to fool myself. The redevelopment of this neighborhood didn't eliminate or rehabilitate any criminals. It simply displaced them--along with a bunch of law abiding poor people. Now I'm weighted down in the quagmire. Is displacing people ethical? Responsible? Good?
None of this is to say that I would refuse to buy a property here. I like the properties and someone is going to buy them--it might as well be me. I am a proponent of the concept that things change and life goes on, and you might as well accept your station for now.
This article: http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/archives/beaconnews/2002/20020427_33.htm
Talks about how the developer will fix a problem of crime and poverty. Well, perhaps in that neighborhood. I found this quote by the developer most interesting: "We are pleased to provide quality affordable apartment housing for Illinois second largest city." When I spoke with the property sales girl about the Marywoods projects yesterday, she stated that these will be renovated into expensive luxury apartments. This is most likely the truth. One thing is for sure, the people who live in Marywoods today, can not afford to live there tomorrow. But, of course, the city must put on its game face. They are certainly not out to displace anyone, right.
|Where did they live before?||mr_spin|
Aug 27, 2002 6:44 AM
|When they built the place you are living in now, who did they displace? Where are they now? Oh, and before those people lived there, who did they displace? How far are you willing to go back? I'm sure there were Native Americans in the area at one time.
You can't take on all the problems of the world. Anyone who lived where those condos are have already been displaced, so it's a non-issue. You can choose not to buy, but it won't bring them back.
|Where do they go?||Brooks|
Aug 27, 2002 7:26 AM
|The sad but true story is that housing stock (and communities) deteriorate over time. A brand new house or project after 20-30 years may not have the same value and becomes more "affordable". Earlier owners move to the newest "great thing". Eventually, an area becomes so "affordable" that a developer can buy up a number of properties, raze the buildings and start over. The current residents just move to other parts of town (particularly in big cities like Chicago and its suburbs) that they can afford. Remember too, that raw ground (farmland) is also being used for new homes so the population growth in an area is generally spreading out (sprawl) rather than being part of redevelopment or in-fill.|
|How far can it sprawl?||Kristin|
Aug 27, 2002 8:21 AM
|That's a big question, and one that's been on my mind. I work with people who commute god-awful distances in order to own nicer homes in the country, yet earn decent salaries in the city. Urban sprawl in Chicagoland is extensive, with suburbs reaching 50 miles past the city limits. And new home buyers are moving even further than that. But how far can it go? Will it eventually stop? Of course, there are people with PHD's, who have not answered this question. When I'm 80, I'll know all the answers; but by then, no one will want to hear them.|
|not far if the city plans smartly for growth||ColnagoFE|
Aug 27, 2002 8:33 AM
|i mean people criticize boulder, co all the time, but a big reason that property values keep increasing (and that property is priced so high in the first place) are the massive growth restrictions the city has enacted. large tracts of "Open Space" that can't be developed have been purchased by the city forming a "greenbelt" and not much (if any) open lots are available to build on even if you wanted to and had the resources. plus there are very strict zoning regulations (some say too strict) that limit what you can build on current property. so what happens? housing prices skyrocket in boulder (the median home is something like $350k now) and developers go to places outside of the town limits (but still close) and build stuff along highway US36 like the current rock creek development--basically high density housing. and eventually i'm guessing it will sprawl all the way to denver. so i'd look in to the city government and see what their policies are on growth. if they have none or have a very lax policy then beware.|
|meant to write "I mean people" not "mean people" (nm)||ColnagoFE|
Aug 27, 2002 8:34 AM
Aug 27, 2002 9:34 AM
|I am not sure, but my guess would be that Aurora is not stict about this. Metro Chicagoland has a poor track record with regard to suburban growth planning all together. I suspect the reasons include:
- Chicago is a real estate trend setter. Mistakes are made here first.
- Each suburb looks to its own interests and there is no one looking at the big picutre. Pluse the towns don't seem to communicate with each other well. (They all fight and bicker a lot, but not much collaboration occurs.)
- Lack of talented city planners in some towns
One effect of this was that urban sprawl from Milwaukee and Chicago overlapped. Today, there are not nearly enough roads to support all the people driving on them. We will soon become famous for our traffic jams.
I think the simplest indicator of Chicagolands future lies within my own heart. I plan to move to North Carolina in 5 years. I'm looking forward to it. Unless some life altering transformation occurs in my life, I will go. Why? Here its: Too crowded. Too out of control. Too time consuming. Too many choices and options and...too many stores. I am sure I'm not the only one out there who is thinking these thoughts. Perhaps Chicago will begin to see an exodus of talented workers who are able to find gainful employment else where. What would that do to the city?