Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: An upside to redlining?

  1. #1
         
    Registered
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    160

    An upside to redlining?

    Recently I did some reading about how Chicago neighborhoods were affected by redlining (The practice of not granting mortages to minority borrowers) after World War II and have become basically bombed out and impovershed. This tended to coincide with White Flight and the expansion of the "color belt" as the minority populations grew and local economies were destroyed. Urban Poor grew to affect an area much larger than the Inner City.

    In the mean time, the suburbs exploded and even some city neighborhoods went sprawl. We now see the downfall to this and the cost to reclaim our past.

    However, many of the redlined neighborhoods have maintained at least a ghost of their past glory. High density building, integrated commerce and residential areas and public transportation. The face that these neighborhoods were destroyed the way they were is a shame but they now present an excellent option of redemption.

    Now I'm not just talking regentrification and redistribution of the poor. Let people stay where they want. The goal should be to get people to want to live in these neighboorhoods.

    Perhaps people could discuss motives to get people in, preferrablly in a mixed ethnicity, mixed income way and get them to start their own urban renewal? Including an involved civic structure in the style of Putnam and Kunstler.

  2. #2
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,165
    Hmmm....interesting thoughts.

    Certainly, redevelopment and (gasp) gentrification could be encouraged and managed successfully if the proper mechanisms are in place.

    One of the major (if not the only) problem with redevelopment and targeting of historically lower income urbans area to middle/upper income households has been rising property taxes and/or rising rents from the increased desireability of the locality and rising property values.

    For existing property owners, the rising property values are mostly a great benefit because they could sell the property for a large "profit". But if they don't sell at the higher value, they may get hurt by the higher property taxes. But the potential to sell can more than compensate for the increased tax burden. One mechanism to affect the taxes would be to give certain tax freezes or maximum yearly assessment increases.

    For renters, the effects of rising values and rents is generally more hurtful. If they cannot buy they may need to move, which can be disruptive, and adequate housing/services may not be available where they can afford to rent. To mitigate this, mechanisms could be created to provide offical affordable housing in the improving area.

    In gentrification, if you're a property owner you'll be OK, if you're a renter, good luck.

    BTW, I don't think there could be any sort of "upside" to the legacy of redlining. It was an insidious policy.
    Last edited by mendelman; 02 Jun 2006 at 5:08 PM.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  3. #3
         
    Registered
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    160
    Maybe non-adverse sideaffect would be a better word. And obviously those were some of the problems of gentrification that i was talking about avoiding and finding away around. Perhaps a warped form of rent/tax control to help preserve is what i'm talking about. Then also integrating the old and new residents, something that might help stop a reverse 'white flight'

    Also, you call them historically impovershed, but not all of them are. Some of the neighborhoods I'm thinking of used to be the richest in the city and were still well off in the last generation or two.

  4. #4
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally posted by burnham follower
    Also, you call them historically impovershed...
    No....I said "historically lower-income", which is significantly different than "impoverished".

    And perhaps I should have said it a different way, such as "has been lower income for the last couple decades" or so.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  5. #5

    Registered
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Boston/Hartford
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally posted by burnham follower
    Perhaps people could discuss motives to get people in, preferrablly in a mixed ethnicity, mixed income way and get them to start their own urban renewal? Including an involved civic structure in the style of Putnam and Kunstler.
    Well in Kunstler's eyes, an urban renewal would come through localization. Get people back in there by operating a local farm, or local tradework. Kunstler would say stop buying food flown over from Asia or Europe and start buying from a local farmer.
    Maybe re-open some factories and mills in the urban area that I am sure still exist as open empty, maybe even crumbling buildings.
    I enjoy Kunstler's writing alot.

    In my own opinion, urban renewal, especially in the Chicago area, can come by trying to reverse the effects of the rust belt, which can be heavily felt in Chicago.

    From Wiki...
    "The Rust Belt, formerly known as the Manufacturing Belt, is an area in the northeastern United States, roughly between Chicago and New York City, whose economy was formerly based largely on heavy industry, manufacturing, and associated industries."


+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Upside Down Rainbow
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 5
    Last post: 18 Sep 2008, 10:16 PM