Study also shows how city has lost apartments since '89
By Johnathon E. Briggs, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune staff reporter Gary Washburn contributed to this report
April 30, 2007
" ... areas that gained condos generally lost apartment buildings. For example, over the 15-year period [1989 to 2004; (Joe Moore, alderman, 1991-2007)], Rogers Park gained 2,196 condo units and lost 217 large apartment buildings and 119 small ones."
One and a Half Decades of Apartment Loss and Condominium Growth
Changes in Chicago’s Residential Building Stock
By Julie Lynn Davis and David F. Merriman, Loyola University Chicago
Center for Urban Research and Learning
- at least 44,637 and perhaps as many as 97,894 apartment units
were removed from Chicago’s housing stock
- 102,408 condominium units have been added to the housing stock
10 comments:
Excellent post Hugh!!! Thanks for sharing.
Here's a good example: between 1997 and 2007, the 1500 and 1600 blocks of Fargo had 3 large apt. buildings (each approx. 40-50 units) converted into condos. Two other bldgs. (6 and 9 units) were converted into condos.
Two more bldgs. (6 and 12 units, respectively) were sold to new owners, who said they intended to do condo conversions but have so far left those bldgs. vacant (for 2 years and 1 year, respectively).
That's approx. 185 rental units lost on only 2 blocks, folks.
this is a post from Brian White:
Lakeside CDC examined the impact of conversions on rental housing in Rogers Park and released a comprehensive study in October 2006. By looking at Cook County Assessor data, we identified 2,709 new condos added to RP between 2003 and 2006 in 148 properties. This is an average of 18.3 units per development, which included new construction and conversions.
We visited each of the 479 rental buildings listed by the Assessor as rentals as of Jan. 1, 2006 and found that by October 2006, 42 buildings representing 918 rental units were under conversion. This was 8.8% of all of the rental buildings in Rogers Park.
At that rate, in the last 2 months of 2006,we likely lost another 8 buildings and 175 rental units. The pace of conversions has slowed, but by no means have we seen the last of it.
Brian White
Lakeside CDC
More condos = less gangbangers = less shooting = less robbery = less thrash = less dog shit = less screaming unsupervised brats = less misery
OK Captain, please explain the source of your "facts". Aren't you putting 'renters' in a box with a label?
There are condo owners who don't pick up after their dogs...who have screaming unsupervised brats. The little dears are just 'expressing' themselves with mom and dad's permission.
However, back to the content of the post Captain, what do YOU think is going on?
Toni, I would like a more detailed explanation of your position on the condo issue. I don't understand your apparent logic -- you seem to support measures to reduce crime, gangs, drugs, litter, etc., and yet you also seem to be very concerned about maintaining low-income and rental housing. How do you reconcile the two positions, when popular and anecdotal evidence suggests that higher rates of home ownership lead to a lower rate of the social ills CouchCaptain listed?
> How do you reconcile the two positions, when popular and anecdotal evidence suggests that higher rates of home ownership lead to a lower rate of the social ills CouchCaptain listed?
Where are people to live who can't afford to own? That includes college students, young married couples just starting out, or newly divorced and someone else got the house, or just moved to town and need an apartment kind of people for examples.
Not ALL people who rent are problematic. The problems are the absentee owners and improper screening methods. More turned to section 8 when rental markets flattened. IF they are subsidized by any government entity, there are rules to follow. Just like any new job orientation, those priveleged recipients of subsidized apartments should attend an orientation.
a. This is your new apartment and here are the rules. I know they're printed, but who reads? It should be a mandatory building meeting twice a year.
b. Break the rules, you're evicted. Period.
Also, there are several 'condo' properties that have section 8 rentals in them - investment properties.
Lastly, there's the common sense thought the City finally realized...high concentrations of poor people in one small place don't work.
Like it or not, NOH is stuck with a few decades more of 304 subsidized buildings that Joe and others decided upon. Granted, it's been up to the community and the good tenants to deal with issues and get some rules enforced, but what else is new?
Ask Joe! He was the one telling the tenants above that 'they'd lose their homes if they didn't vote for him'.
"Like it or not, NOH is stuck with a few decades more of 304 subsidized buildings that Joe and others decided upon."
Why is NOH stuck with a few decades more of subsidized buildings? I don't understand what you mean by this.
I was hoping that things were starting to "turn around" with the new improvements on Howard Street coming in ....
I've lived in two different apartment buildings on Fargo, and most of my neighbors were decent people. The large courtyard building down the block that was converted to condos now has lots of noisy people who yak on the phone as loud as possible while on their balconies. Some of them don't pick up after their dogs, or put the dogs on their balconies and let them bark. Real fine neighbors - not!
southevanstonian - Northpoint is composed of 12 buildings/304 apartments here. Joe and others assisted in extending the contract. I tossed the tree killer, but I think it's 2034. You can call the ward office and get more 'information' that isn't libelous.
There's a post somewhere on the blog about the 'chain of command' if you do a search, you can read emails given me regarding the meeting that excluded the whole neighborhood save for the special people.
OF COURSE I have to put a DISCLAIMER here that I do know many residents of Northpoint and consider some to be friends. It's the former management that irked the community and the good tenants. Mismanagement, poor screening, and it only takes a few bad apples.....
Post a Comment