AN ANALYSIS OF DIVERSE GENTRIFICATION PROCESSES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTIVITY IN THREE CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS By Ted Grevstad-Nordbrock A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Geography – Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF DIVERSE GENTRIFICATION PROCESSES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTIVITY IN THREE CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOODS By Ted Grevstad-Nordbrock This dissertation explores the relationship between historic preservation and gentrification and how these forces have differentially shaped neighborhoods in Chicago over the period 1970-2000. It asks the two primary questions. First, to what extent is there evidence of diversity and complexity in the gentrification processes in Chicago where there have also been high levels of historic preservation activity? Second, what are some of the fundamental characteristics of these gentrification processes? This dissertation assesses whether public preservation programs have been facilitating gentrification in Chicago and helps clarify the long-debated relationship between preservation and gentrification. To explore these topics, principal component analysis and K-means cluster analysis are used to identify three suitable neighborhoods as case studies; each of these neighborhoods is then subjected to an in-depth, qualitative analysis. The findings of this research suggest that neighborhoods with different histories, populations, and urban morphologies use preservation programs in different ways to achieve different gentrification outcomes. Copyright by TED GREVSTAD-NORDBROCK 2015 For Anne, Fritz, and Karin iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to my dissertation committee (Joe Darden, Zenia Kotval, Joe Messina, Bruce Pigozzi, Igor Vojnovic), to the staff and faculty of the geography department at MSU, and to my longtime colleagues at the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office and the erstwhile Office of the State Archaeologist. I’m especially indebted to the following people: first, to Igor Vojnovic, for being the best dissertation advisor imaginable, as well as a good friend; to Cristina Leuca Benton and Minting Ye, for their willingness to field innumerable questions over the years; to Todd Walsh, for the hours of thoughtful discussion at work; to Laura Ashlee and Dean Anderson, for years of enthusiastic support and friendship; to Heidi Nordbrock and Rima Krutulis, for (among other things!) ferrying me around Chicago; to Bill and Carol Nordbrock, my parents, for over four decades of unflagging encouragement; to Connie Saum Grevstad, my motherin-law, for recounting her personal experiences in Old Town; and last but not least, to my family—to Anne, Fritz, and Karin, the three best things in my life. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xv Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Exploring the Relationship between Gentrification and Historic Preservation ........ 5 1.2 The Context of Chicago ........................................................................................ 8 1.3 Overview of Chapters ......................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2: Gentrification Literature Review ................................................................... 21 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Gentrification Defined ......................................................................................... 22 2.3 The Geography of Gentrification Research ......................................................... 23 2.4 Gentrification as Social and Physical Upgrading ................................................. 25 Class Change/Social Upgrading ................................................................................ 27 Capital Improvements/Physical Upgrading ................................................................ 32 2.5 Traditional Explanations and Ideological Camps................................................. 35 Supply-Side (Production) Explanations ...................................................................... 35 Demand-Side (Consumption) Explanations ............................................................... 39 2.6 Evolving Explanations......................................................................................... 45 2.7 Gentrification’s Diversity and Consistencies ....................................................... 46 2.8 Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................... 49 Chapter 3: Research Design, Data, and Quantitative Analysis ...................................... 51 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 51 3.2 Research Questions ........................................................................................... 53 3.3 Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................ 53 3.4 Overview of Methods .......................................................................................... 54 3.5 Research Data.................................................................................................... 55 3.6 Gentrification Data .............................................................................................. 56 Data Transformations ................................................................................................ 58 Census Tract Boundary Data ..................................................................................... 63 Standardization of Tract Polygons ............................................................................. 67 Omitted Census Tracts .............................................................................................. 73 3.7 Upgrading in Post-Industrial Chicago, 1970-2000: An Overview ......................... 75 3.8 Quantitative Analysis: Overview.......................................................................... 89 3.9 PCA Results ....................................................................................................... 93 3.10 K-Means Clustering Results ............................................................................... 96 3.11 Qualitative Analysis and Case Study Neighborhoods ....................................... 101 3.12 Conclusion and Next Steps............................................................................... 108 Chapter 4: Historic Preservation .................................................................................. 110 vi 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 110 4.2 Historic Preservation and the Typology of Historic Resources ............................... 112 4.3 Historic Preservation: Programs and Incentives ................................................ 119 Federal Programs .................................................................................................... 121 City of Chicago Programs ........................................................................................ 123 Financial Incentives ................................................................................................. 127 4.4 Preservation’s Changing Focus ........................................................................ 132 4.5 Historic Preservation Data ................................................................................ 139 Spatial Distribution of Historic Preservation Data ..................................................... 145 Selection of Case Study Neighborhoods.................................................................. 168 Historic Preservation Data Limitations ..................................................................... 170 4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 172 Chapter 5: Case Study #1: Lincoln Park ...................................................................... 177 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 177 5.2 Lincoln Park CCA ............................................................................................. 180 5.3 Population and Housing Changes..................................................................... 191 5.4 Lincoln Park Case Study .................................................................................. 197 5.5 Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Redevelopment in Lincoln Park ........ 205 5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 232 Chapter 6: Case Study #2: Sheridan Park (Uptown) ................................................... 235 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 235 6.2 Uptown CCA ..................................................................................................... 239 6.3 Population and Housing Changes..................................................................... 247 6.4 Sheridan Park Case Study................................................................................ 251 6.5 Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Redevelopment in Uptown ................ 259 6.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 280 Chapter 7: Case Study #3: Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville (Edgewater)................ 283 7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 283 7.2 Edgewater CCA ................................................................................................ 286 7.3 Population and Housing Changes..................................................................... 292 7.4 Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville Case Study................................................. 296 7.5 Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Redevelopment in Uptown ................ 305 7.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 320 Chapter 8: Conclusions ............................................................................................... 324 8.1 Research Overview ............................................................................................... 324 8.2 Policy Recommendations ...................................................................................... 341 8.3 Historic Preservation as Redevelopment Policy and its Implications for Urban Governance ................................................................................................................ 344 8.4 Future Research Directions ................................................................................... 346 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 348 APPENDIX A: Census Tracts and Corresponding Chicago Community Areas ............ 349 APPENDIX B: PCA Results from Systat 13 ................................................................. 354 APPENDIX C: PCA Factor Mapping ............................................................................ 357 APPENDIX D: Incremental-F Results .......................................................................... 366 vii BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 367 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Twenty-three baseline census variables. This table includes references to studies that have relied on one or more of the gentrification indicators used in this research. ....................................................................................................................... 58 Table 3.2: Change population census variables. Note: % Change=percentage change, Change %=change in the percentage of. ...................................................................... 59 Table 3.3: Change socioeconomic census variables. Note: % Change=percentage change, Change %=change in the percentage of. Variables with dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator. ........................ 60 Table 3.4: Change housing census variables. Note: % Change=percentage change, Change %=change in the percentage of. Variables with dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator. ........................................... 61 Table 3.5: Sample tract (partial data) showing changes in black population. ................. 62 Table 3.6: Inter-decade comparability files. ................................................................... 68 Table 3.7: Population-based relationship files for three census tracts, as provided by Census Bureau. ............................................................................................................ 69 Table 3.8: Parsed data from the relationship file in Table3.7. ........................................ 69 Table 3.9: Population-based relationship files as provided by Census Bureau. ............. 71 Table 3.10: Parsed data from the relationship file in Table 3.9. ..................................... 71 Table 3.11: List of omitted census tracts. ...................................................................... 73 Table 3.12: Historical population, Chicago SMA and city. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. ...................................................................................................................................... 76 ix Table 3.13: Comparison of Cluster 11 and Chicago population change variables, 19702000. ............................................................................................................................. 99 Table 3.14: Comparison of Cluster 11 and Chicago socioeconomic change variables, 1970-2000. .................................................................................................................... 99 Table 3.15: Comparison of Cluster 11 and Chicago housing change variables, 19702000. ........................................................................................................................... 100 Table 4.1: Top 20 CCAs ranked by total # of preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. ............ 146 Table 4.2: Top 20 CCAs ranked by National Register preservation activity count and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. ......... 154 Table 4.3: Top 20 CCAs (plus Edgewater) ranked by Chicago Landmark preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part............................................................................................................ 158 Table 4.4: Top 20 CCAs (plus Edgewater) ranked by Tax Credit preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part.............................................................................................................................. 161 Table 4.5: Top 20 CCAs ranked by Tax Credit preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. ............ 165 Table 4.6: Top 20 CCAs ranked by Tax Assessment Freeze preservation activity values and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. All dollars amounts adjusted for inflation to year 2000 values...................................... 166 Table 5.1: Rank of top fifteen CCAs by approximate historic building count and percentage of total. CCAs that are home to case study tracts are bolded; italicized CCAs are not in Cluster 11, neither wholly nor in part. ................................................ 178 Table 5.2: Housing Stock in the Lincoln Park CCA and Chicago, 2014. Source: Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. ................................................................... 183 Table 5.3 : Percent change in key demographic variables in Lincoln Park case study and aggregated for the Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (percent change unless noted), 1970-2000. *=’change in the percent of.’ ............................................. 192 x Table 5.4: Per Capita Income and Family Income in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. (Values adjusted for inflation.) ..................................................................................... 194 Table 5.5: Professionals and Manufacturers in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. ..... 194 Table 5.6: Families in Poverty and Public Assistance Income (PAI) Households in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000................................................................................. 195 Table 5.7: Median Gross Monthly Rent and Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in the Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. (Values adjusted for inflation.) ..... 195 Table 5.8: Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. (Values adjusted for inflation.) ..................................................................................... 197 Table 5.9: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 19702000. ........................................................................................................................... 197 Table 5.10: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Race (absolute and percent change). ...................................................................................................................... 200 Table 5.11: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Education and Employment Characteristics (absolute and percent change)............................................................ 200 Table 5.12: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Income and Poverty (absolute and percent change). ......................................................................................................... 200 Table 5.13: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Units, Median Value, and Gross Rent (absolute and percent change). ................................................................ 200 Table 5.14: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Tenure (absolute and percent change). ......................................................................................................... 200 Table 6.1: Housing Stock in the Uptown CCA and Chicago, 2014. Source: Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. ........................................................................ 241 xi Table 6.2: Percent change in key demographic variables in Sheridan Park case study tract and aggregated for the Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (percent change unless noted), 1970-2000. *=’change in the percent of.’ ................................ 248 Table 6.3: Per Capita Income and Family Income in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. .................................................. 249 Table 6.4: Professionals and Manufacturers in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. ..... 249 Table 6.5: Families in Poverty and Public Assistance Income (PAI) Households in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. ................................................................................................... 250 Table 6.6: Median Gross Monthly Rent and Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in the Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. .... 250 Table 6.7: Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 19702000. ........................................................................................................................... 251 Table 6.8: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. .................................................................................................................. 251 Table 6.9: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Race (absolute and percent change). .................................................................................................................................... 258 Table 6.10: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Education and Employment Characteristics (absolute and percent change)............................................................ 259 Table 6.11: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Income and Poverty (absolute and percent change). ......................................................................................................... 259 Table 6.12: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Units, Median Value, and Gross Rent (absolute and percent change) ................................................................. 259 Table 6.13: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Tenure (absolute and percent change). ......................................................................................................... 259 xii Table 7.1: Housing Stock in the Edgewater CCA and Chicago, 2014. Source: Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. ................................................................... 287 Table 7.2:Percent change in key demographic variables in LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville (Edgewater) case study and aggregated for Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (percent change unless noted), 1970-2000. *=’change in the percent of.’......................................................................................................... 293 Table 7.3: Per Capita Income and Family Income in the LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation........................................................................................................................ 293 Table 7.4: Professionals and Manufacturers in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. ................................................................................................... 294 Table 7.5: Families in Poverty and Public Assistance Income (PAI) Households in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. .......................................... 294 Table 7.6: Median Gross Monthly Rent and Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. ........................................................................................ 295 Table 7.7: Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 19702000. ........................................................................................................................... 295 Table 7.8: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units in LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. ..................................................... 296 Table 7.9: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Race (absolute and percent change). .................................................................................................................................... 303 Table 7.10: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Education and Employment Characteristics (absolute and percent change)............................................................ 303 Table 7.11: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Income and Poverty (absolute and percent change). ......................................................................................................... 304 xiii Table 7.12: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Units, Median Value, and Gross Rent (absolute and percent change) ................................................................. 304 Table 7.13: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Tenure (absolute and percent change). ......................................................................................................... 304 Table 8.1: Number, percent, and percentage change of college graduates. ................ 332 Table 8.2: Number, percent, and percentage change of professional residents........... 332 Table 8.3: Number, percent, and percentage change of residents employed in the manufacturing sector. .................................................................................................. 333 Table 8.4: Number, percent, and percentage change of families living in poverty. ....... 333 Table 8.5: Number, percent, and percentage change of owner-occupied housing units. .................................................................................................................................... 334 Table 8.6: Number, percent, and percentage change of renter-occupied housing units. .................................................................................................................................... 334 Table 8.7: Per capita income change, 1970-2000. ...................................................... 335 Table 8.8: Media family income change, 1970-2000.................................................... 335 Table 8.9: Median gross rent, change 1970-2000. ...................................................... 335 Table 8.10: Median housing value, change 1970-2000. .............................................. 335 Table A.1: Census tracts and corresponding Chicago Community Areas. ................... 349 Table B.1: PCA results from Systat 13. ....................................................................... 354 Table D.1: Results of incremental-F test to determine approporiate number of clusters to extract. ........................................................................................................................ 366 xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Potentially historic properties identified during the 1985-1995 Chicago Historic Resources Survey, City of Chicago. ................................................................. 10 Figure 1.2: Worker's housing in the Pilsen neighborhood. Source: author. ................... 12 Figure 1.3: Greystones in the Andersonville neighborhood. Source: author. ................ 12 Figure 1.4: Prairie School house in the Edgewater neighborhood. Source: author. ...... 13 Figure 1.5: Aerial view of the Chicago suburb of Park Forest in 1952. Source: Park Forest Public Library. .................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.1: New-build residential block in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. Source: author. ........................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 2.2: New-build condominiums in the Uptown neighborhood. Source: author. .... 27 Figure 2.3: Diagram illustrating the rent gap hypothesis as originally conceptualized by Smith (Smith 1979)........................................................................................................ 37 Figure 3.1: Census tract boundaries. Orange polygons represent 1970 census boundaries while dark green lines show changes to tracts from the 2000 census. Grey represents the Chicago city limits. ................................................................................. 64 Figure 3.2: Map showing CCAs with the example of the Lincoln Park CCA highlighted. 66 Figure 3.3: Detail map showing CCAs with the Lincoln Park CCA highlighted and year 2000 census tracts overlaid. .......................................................................................... 67 Figure 3.4: 1990 census tracts 2836 (blue, at top) and 3101 (green, at bottom). ........... 69 Figure 3.5: 2000 census tracts 2836 (blue, at top) and 3101 (green, at bottom). ........... 70 xv Figure 3.6: Aerial photo showing area assigned to tract 2836 in 2000 from tract 3101 in 1990. Source: Google Maps. ........................................................................................ 70 Figure 3.7: 1990 census tracts 2218 (blue, at top) and 2219 (green, at bottom). ........... 71 Figure 3.8: 2000 census tracts 2218 (blue, at top) and 2219 (green, at bottom). ........... 72 Figure 3.9: Aerial photo showing area that changed from tract 2219 in 1990 to tract 2218 in 2000. Source: Google Maps. .................................................................................... 72 Figure 3.10: Omitted census tracts. ............................................................................... 74 Figure 3.11: Detail of omitted census tract 8233.04 (red hatched polygon), which falls largely outside of Chicago’s municipal boundaries (yellow polygon). ............................. 75 Figure 3.12: Absolute change in total population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification.......................................................................................... 77 Figure 3.13: Change in the percent of the white population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ............................................................................ 78 Figure 3.14: Change in the percent of the black population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ............................................................................ 79 Figure 3.15: Change in the percent of the Hispanic population, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ................................................................. 80 Figure 3.16: Change in the percent of college graduates, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ............................................................................ 81 Figure 3.17: Change in the percent of professionals, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification.......................................................................................... 82 Figure 3.18: Change in the percent of residents employed in manufacturing, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ................................................ 83 Figure 3.19: Change in the percent of families living in poverty, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ................................................................. 84 xvi Figure 3.20: Change in the percent of households receiving public assistance income (PAI), tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ..................... 85 Figure 3.21: Absolute change in per capita income in real dollars, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ................................................................. 86 Figure 3.22: Absolute change in family income in real dollars, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ................................................................. 87 Figure 3.23: Absolute change in median gross rent in real dollars, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. ................................................................. 88 Figure 3.24: PCA cluster 11 (with case studies highlighted). ......................................... 98 Figure 3.25: 831 South Claremont Avenue, a rehabilitated house in the Tri-Taylor neighborhood. Source: author. ................................................................................... 104 Figure 3.26: New and rehabilitated old construction in the Bucktown neighborhood (Logan Square CCA): 2020 (left, built 2009) and 2016 West Charleston Avenue (right, built 1892). Source: author. ........................................................................................ 105 Figure 3.27: Rehabilitated rowhouses on 5600 block of South Blackstone Avenue, Hyde Park neighborhood. Source: author. ........................................................................... 106 Figure 3.28: Streetscape, Beverly neighborhood. Source: Paul Krutulis. .................... 107 Figure 4.1: Henry B. Clarke House (built 1836), Chicago’s oldest house. Source: City of Chicago. ...................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 4.2: Glessner House (built 1886), 1800 South Prairie Avenue. Source: City of Chicago. ...................................................................................................................... 116 Figure 4.3: Map showing Glessner House (solid c-shaped polygon) within the National Register historic district (hollow black polygon) and larger Chicago Landmark district (hollow grey polygon). ................................................................................................. 117 Figure 4.4: National Register listings by year............................................................... 122 Figure 4.5: City of Chicago listings by year. ................................................................. 125 xvii Figure 4.6: Map showing the National Register-listed Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District polygon feature in GIS. .................................................................................... 141 Figure 4.7: Map showing the same district as above, with polygon feature disaggregated into individual points (buildings). .................................................................................. 142 Figure 4.8: Tax credit log sample from the early-1980s. Data from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield................................................................................. 144 Figure 4.9: 1900 North Freemont Street, a tax credit and tax assessment freeze project in the Sheffield Historic District, Lincoln Park neighborhood. Source: author. ............. 145 Figure 4.10: Map of the Loop showing coincidence of National Register listings and Chicago Landmarks. ................................................................................................... 148 Figure 4.11: Maps showing the coincidence of National Register and Chicago Landmark districts: the Wicker Park district on Chicago’s northwest side..................................... 149 Figure 4.12: National Register of Historic Places (individual buildings), 1966-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. ............................ 151 Figure 4.13: National Register of Historic Places historic districts, 1966-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. ............................ 153 Figure 4.14: City of Chicago Landmarks (individual buildings), 1968-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. ....................................... 156 Figure 4.15: City of Chicago Landmark historic districts, 1968-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted................................................ 157 Figure 4.16: Tax credit projects, ca.1976-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. ............................................................................. 160 Figure 4.17: Tax assessment freeze projects, ca.1982-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. ....................................................... 163 Figure 4.18: The Peterson Building. Source: Gold Coast Realty-Chicago. ................. 164 xviii Figure 4.19: Preservation Easements, ca.1976-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted..................................................................... 167 Figure 4.20: Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1999) sign in the Edgewater neighborhood. Source: author. ............................. 174 Figure 4.21: National Register of Historic Places plaque, Sheridan Park Historic District (listed 1985), Uptown neighborhood. Source: author. ................................................. 174 Figure 5.1: Map with location of Lincoln Park CCA and case study neighborhood....... 182 Figure 5.2: Renovated single-family home at 1722 North North Park Avenue, Old Town Triangle neighborhood, Lincoln Park. Source: City of Chicago. .................................. 184 Figure 5.3: Renovated rowhouses on the 2200 block of North Kenmore Avenue, DePaul neighborhood, Lincoln Park. Source: author. .............................................................. 185 Figure 5.4: Renovated commercial/residential building at 1914-16 North Sheffield Avenue, Ranch Triangle neighborhood, Lincoln Park. Source: author. ....................... 185 Figure 5.5: Image from an article in Old Town Triangle Newsletter, March/April 2013, celebrating the “sweat equity” of pioneering women gentrifiers in Lincoln Park. Source: Old Town Triangle Association. ................................................................................... 187 Figure 5.6: “Sheffield Garden District of Chicago” banner, Sheffield neighborhood of Lincoln Park. Source: author. ..................................................................................... 189 Figure 5.7: Census tract 718, Lincoln Park CCA. ........................................................ 198 Figure 5.8: Lofted former industrial building in the Clybourn Corridor, corner of North Clybourn Avenue and West Wisconsin Street. Source: author. .................................. 204 Figure 5.9: New multi-unit residential construction at corner of North Racine Avenue and West Armitage Avenue, off the Clybourn Corridor. Source: author. ............................ 204 Figure 5.10: Detail of the Lincoln Park CCA and case study neighborhood showing the distribution of historic sites. ......................................................................................... 206 xix Figure 5.11: Francis J. Dewes House, Chicago. Source: HABS/HAER Collection, Library of Congress. .................................................................................................... 208 Figure 5.12: “Preservation for Tomorrow” conference (1972). Source: DePaul University Special Collections and Archives................................................................................. 211 Figure 5.13: National Register of Historic Places individual properties and historic districts in Lincoln Park and case study tract, 1970-2000. ........................................... 212 Figure 5.14: City of Chicago individual landmarks and historic districts in Lincoln Park and case study tract, 1970-2000. ................................................................................ 216 Figure 5.15: Rehabilitated Yondorf Block and Hall, ca. 2010. Source: Vinci-Hamp Architects, Inc.............................................................................................................. 219 Figure 5.16: 1825 North Orchard Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Tax assessment freeze project (1992). Source: Cook County Assessor's Office. .............. 220 Figure 5.17: 1825 North Orchard Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Source: author. ......................................................................................................................... 221 Figure 5.18: 1959 North Howe Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded in 1983, 1985, and 1986). An example of "façadectomy": the building’s original façade preserved with new construction to the rear. Source: author...................................................................... 222 Figure 5.19: 1934 North Bissell Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Pre-addition image, ca. 2012. Source: Cook County Assessor's Office. ......................................... 223 Figure 5.20: 1934 North Bissell Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Example of maximizing floor-space in an existing historic building through the addition of an additional story. Source: author. ................................................................................. 223 Figure 5.21: 1947 North Howe Street (built 1990), located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). New construction in a contemporary style. Source: author. ................................................ 225 xx Figure 5.22: 1919 North Howe Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Demolished ca. 2013. Source: Cook County Assessor's Office. .......................................................... 225 Figure 5.23: 1919 North Howe Street today. New-build construction by BGD&C developers in a historicizing, Second Empire style. Source: author. ........................... 226 Figure 5.24: 2030 North Magnolia Avenue (erected 1992) in a neoclassical style. Source: Jameson Sotheby’s International Realty. ....................................................... 226 Figure 5.25: New-build house at 1862 North Dayton Street, in the Mediterranean Revival style (built 1990). Source: author. ............................................................................... 227 Figure 5.26: 1863 North Howe Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded in 1983, 1985, and 1986). Marketed by BGD&C developers as a teardown in May 2014. Source: author. .......................... 229 Figure 5.27: Parrillo House, 1932 North Burling Street, built 2008. Source: Chicagonow.com......................................................................................................... 231 Figure 5.28: House at 550 West Dickens Avenue, built 2010. Source: Liederbach & Graham Architects. ..................................................................................................... 232 Figure 6.1: Map showing location of Uptown CCA and case study neighborhood. ...... 236 Figure 6.2: Essanay Studio Building (Chicago Landmark, 1996), 1333-45 West Argyle Street, Uptown. Source: City of Chicago. ................................................................... 242 Figure 6.3: Map of Sheridan Park (Tract 317), Uptown neighborhood. ........................ 252 Figure 6.4: 4636-4638 North Malden Street, a typical six-flat in Sheridan Park. Source: author. ......................................................................................................................... 254 Figure 6.5: 5602 North Malden Street, a particularly exuberant single-family home in Sheridan Park. Source: author. .................................................................................. 255 Figure 6.6: High-density buildings at the intersection of North Malden Street and West Wilson Avenue, Sheridan Park. Source: author. ......................................................... 255 xxi Figure 6.7: Typical commercial buildings along the 4000 block of North Clark Street, Sheridan Park. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. ............................................ 256 Figure 6.8: New six-flat construction (built ca.2000) at 4606 North Malden Street. Source: author............................................................................................................. 256 Figure 6.9: New six-flat construction (built ca.2008) at 4721 North Malden Street. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. ..................................................................... 257 Figure 6.10: Upscale restaurant at 1224 West Wilson, Sheridan Park, Uptown. Source:YoChicago.com............................................................................................... 257 Figure 6.11: Sheridan Park Historic District boundaries. .............................................. 264 Figure 6.12: National Register individual properties, tax credit projects, and tax assessment freeze projects in the Sheridan Park neighborhood. Note: multiple projects in a single building (usually a multi-unit building) are “stacked” on map and appear as a single feature............................................................................................................... 266 Figure 6.13: Sheridan Park Historic District placard, ca. 1986. Source: Uptown Chicago History. ........................................................................................................................ 267 Figure 6.14: National Register of Historic Places plaque, Malden Towers, Sheridan Park, Uptown. Source: author. ............................................................................................. 268 Figure 6.15: Malden Towers, 4521 North Malden Street, listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983 and as part of the Sheridan Park Historic District in 1985. Historic Preservation tax credit project for mixed-income housing. Source: author............................................................................................................. 275 Figure 6.16: Leland Apartments, 1207 West Leland Avenue, listed as part of the Sheridan Park Historic District in 1985. Source: Heartland Alliance Housing. ............. 275 Figure 6.17: Uptown Theater. Source: Chicago Tribune. ............................................ 277 Figure 6.18: 4627 North Beacon Street, Sheridan Park. Source: Uptown Update. ..... 279 Figure 6.19: 4642 North Magnolia Avenue, Sheridan Park. Demolished in 2014. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. ..................................................................... 280 xxii Figure 7.1: Map showing location of Edgewater CCA and case study neighborhood... 284 Figure 7.2: Swedish American Museum water tower (currently removed) painted to resemble a Swedish flag, Andersonville. Source: Northwestern University................. 288 Figure 7.3: 5940 North Kenmore Avenue, a typical “4+1” apartment building (built 1961). Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. ..................................................................... 290 Figure 7.4: Map of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville (Tract 308), Edgewater CCA. .. 297 Figure 7.5: Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville census tract with Lakewood-Balmoral and Andersonville neighborhoods indicated. ...................................................................... 298 Figure 7.6: Uniform streetscape along the 5400 block of North Lakewood Avenue. Source: author............................................................................................................. 299 Figure 7.7: Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study (yellow polygon), LakewoodBalmoral Historic District (purple polygon). The suburban quality of the latter is evident when compared to the more urban surroundings. Source (aerial imagery): Illinois Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. .................................................................................. 300 Figure 7.8: Three-flats on the 5300 block of North Glenwood Avenue. Source: author. .................................................................................................................................... 301 Figure 7.9: Multi-unit apartment building at 1443 West Balmoral Avenue. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. ........................................................................................... 302 Figure 7.10: Tax credit and tax assessment freeze projects in the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District (indicated by white hatched polygon). ................................................. 307 Figure 7.11: House at 5459 North Lakewood Avenue. Tax assessment freeze project. Source: author............................................................................................................. 308 Figure 7.12: House at 5255 North Lakewood Avenue. Tax assessment freeze project. Source: author............................................................................................................. 308 Figure 7.13: Lakewood-Balmoral neighborhood sign with founding date and date listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Source: author........................................ 310 xxiii Figure 7.14: Wall-mounted National Register plaque at 5239 North Wayne Avenue, Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District. Source: author. ................................................. 311 Figure 7.15: 5448 North Lakewood Avenue (built 1966). Source: author. ................... 316 Figure 7.16: 5536 North Glenwood Avenue (built 2001). Source: author. ................... 316 Figure C.1: Factor 1 mapping. ..................................................................................... 357 Figure C.2: Factor 2 mapping. ..................................................................................... 358 Figure C.3: Factor 3 mapping. ..................................................................................... 359 Figure C.4: Factor 4 mapping. ..................................................................................... 360 Figure C.5: Factor 5 mapping. ..................................................................................... 361 Figure C.6: Factor 6 mapping. ..................................................................................... 362 Figure C.7: Factor 7 mapping. ..................................................................................... 363 Figure C.8: Factor 8 mapping. ..................................................................................... 364 Figure C.9: Factor 9 mapping. ..................................................................................... 365 xxiv Chapter 1: Introduction This dissertation asks important questions about the nature of the relationship between governmental historic preservation and gentrification. It poses the questions: 1) to what extent is there evidence of diversity and complexity in the gentrification processes in Chicago where there have also been high levels of historic preservation activity?; and 2) what are some of the fundamental characteristics of these gentrification processes? Diversity is a central concept in this research, which hypothesizes that historic preservation activity will reflect the physical and social idiosyncrasies of different neighborhoods in Chicago1. Furthermore, the use of different governmental preservation programs and incentives will impact the process of gentrification in diverse ways. Preservation tools are not monolithic. They can be honorific, regulatory, financial, or a combination thereof. The spatial distribution of preservation activity, and of gentrification activity, will reflect differences in the abilities of neighborhood actors and agencies to embrace historic preservation as suited to their localized needs. It also reflects the goals and priorities of public agencies and private sector actors. The questions of gentrification’s diversity and its relationship to historic preservation are explored in the context of Chicago during the period 1970-2000. Chicago experienced profound physical and social decline in the years following World War II. Decentralization of residents and jobs occurred at the metropolitan scale and was attributable, in large measure, to the demand for new housing in the suburbs and governmental policies that favored development there (Hirsch 1983; Katz 1989; 1 The concept of diversity in this dissertation does not refer specifically to class, racial, or ethnic diversity. Rather, diversity in this context specifically connotes the diverse possibility of redevelopment processes, in this case, throughout Chicago. When terms like “diverse” and “chaotic” are used in this dissertation to describe gentrification, it is done so to acknowledge that the process is much broader in terms of the actors and the reinvestment strategies involved, and in the displacement processes, than what has been traditionally defined. The process is also much more varied in its manifestations than what was described by early researchers who maintained a far narrower conceptualization of gentrification. 1 Teaford 1990). The process of white flight—the suburbanization of the white middle class—and the attendant decamping of businesses and jobs left Chicago with an infrastructure too large to be supported by its diminished population and tax base. In this environment Chicago’s population fell from its peak of 3,620,962 residents in 1950 to 2,896,016 in 2000; the 2010 census puts the city at 2,695,598 residents. Disinvestment and abandonment came to characterize many of the city’s neighborhoods during this period, as did the familiar social problems of unemployment, poverty, and crime. Yet against the centrifugal flow of population and investment, small but noteworthy pockets of urban repopulation and reinvestment were also observable beginning in the 1960s. This was described as “gentrification”: the return of the gentry and its financial resources to a limited number of urban neighborhoods—in particular to those that were affordable, with amenities and handcrafted older buildings, and within commuting distance of downtown jobs. This unexpected return of the middle class was heralded as a sign of central city revival, but its impacts on existing lower-class residents were less than favorable. Urban revitalization was often accompanied by displacement. Economic revaluation in a neighborhood either passively forced existing residents out of newly more affluent neighborhoods or they were evicted in anticipation of raised rents or when apartments were converted to condominiums (Smith 1982; Lyons 1996; Atkinson 2000; Newman and Wyly 2006). The net effect was social destabilization. What struck early researchers as noteworthy about gentrification was its reversal of traditional models of population migration, filtering, and neighborhood change within metropolitan areas. A neighborhood was thought to reflect, in very broad terms, a resident’s socioeconomic status within the region, and graduation from one neighborhood to another was seen as an indicator of upward mobility. The processes of 2 gentrification and displacement were framed in the context of the neighborhood change models of Burgess and the Chicago School (Suchar 2006; Betancur 2011), keeping the change factor constant but inverting other factors, like the spatial direction of population flow within an urban region (Friedenfels 1992). Middle-class gentrifiers did not move outward to newer, costlier neighborhoods or suburbs with more space. Rather, they moved inward, to older, denser, and cheaper neighborhoods—to housing that should have been reserved, according to Chicago School theory, for classes at the lowest tiers of the urban hierarchy. Palen and London succinctly captured this reversal in their observation that “[a]fter several decades in which newer homes were more or less automatically judged better, there appears to be a reversal of values among some buyers” (Palen and London 1984, p. 259). Many of the homes in urban neighborhoods that were “judged better” by the gentrifying middle class were those that had officially been determined historic by government at different levels. Even the Federal government noted this trend. In its 1979 report to Congress, People, Building Neighborhoods, the National Commission on Neighborhoods cautioned that the “return to the city” movement, while beneficial in many respects, also stood the very real chance of replicating the mistakes of urban renewal: Neighborhood preservation surely has an important and proper role; but too much of it, too fast, without any protection for those who already reside in central cities, initiates a process known as ‘gentrification’ that displaces the elderly, blue collar workers, and the unemployed in favor of professionals and white collar workers. Renters are replaced by homeowners, Singles and couples without children migrate into rehabilitated neighborhoods in significant numbers (National Commission on Neighborhoods 1979, p. 11). The report goes on to implicate historic preservation—and financially-subsidized historic rehabilitation projects, in particular—as an unintended driver of gentrification and displacement in urban neighborhoods. It notes how Federal 3 tax provisions for historic rehabilitation have “often come at the expense of low and moderate income residents of those newly discovered historic neighborhoods, many of whom have been displaced by more affluent homeowners” (Ibid., p. 191). This dissertation develops a better understanding of the diverse forces involved in the gentrification of Chicago neighborhoods during the final three decades of the 20th century. The actors and agencies involved in gentrification are explored here, as are the tools of gentrification and the sites where the process has played out. Specifically, this research provides a better understanding of the public sector’s role in gentrification— which, as the above paragraph suggests, has long been acknowledged by no less than government itself. State-led (or state-subsidized) gentrification is a growing research subarea in urban geography and allied fields (for example, see Hackworth and Smith 2001; Vojnovic 2003; Vojnovic 2003; He 2007; Uitermark, Duyvendak and Kleinhans 2007; Vojnovic 2007; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). What remains largely unexplored, however, is the relationship of gentrification to the public programs and incentives that are promoted as means for reviving neighborhoods in decline. This dissertation examines a suite of such public programs, all of which relate to historic preservation. In this context historic preservation describes the Federal, State, and local programs that recognize and commemorate historically and architecturally distinctive neighborhoods, regulate physical changes within them, and encourage their rehabilitation and reuse through various financial incentives (Stipe and Lee 1987; Murtagh 1997). Preservation has been portrayed as an urban revitalization tool for bringing new life to withered yet viable historic neighborhoods. This relationship is 4 critically explored using quantitative and qualitative research methods that have been successfully demonstrated elsewhere (Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). 1.1 Exploring the Relationship between Gentrification and Historic Preservation Researchers have long acknowledged that rehabilitated historic buildings and historic neighborhoods are drivers of gentrification, as well as highly visible manifestations of this upgrading process (see Zukin 1982; Jager 1986; London, Lee and Lipton 1986; Zukin 1987; Mills 1988; Lees 1994; Ley 1996; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007). A handful of others have discussed preservation as a thinly veiled public strategy for inducing gentrification to help save distressed urban neighborhoods (Wilson 2006). Zukin’s early work, for example, deftly chronicled how government legitimized gentrification in the historic districts of lower Manhattan by revising building codes and zoning to make the “lofting” of former industrial spaces more attractive, and then incentivized this activity through tax breaks to developers and investors (Zukin 1982; Zukin 1987; Zukin 1998). While Zukin’s Manhattan might be a superlative example of government’s role in gentrification, and rare in its exceptionality, lesser examples are not difficult to identify. The Chicago neighborhoods in this dissertation offer three such examples. Each reveals a different gentrification trajectory facilitated by different physical conditions and different historic preservation mechanisms. Economic explanations of gentrification begin with the availability and affordability of old, and often historic, housing stock within devalorized neighborhoods (Smith 1979; Smith 1998). Competing cultural explanations are underpinned by issues of bourgeois taste and post-war consumption practices (Zukin 1982; Ley 1996). In this latter context, scarce resources like historic or architecturally unique buildings allow for residential differentiation: for middle class urban residents to distinguish themselves from 5 both lower-class urbanites and suburbanites (Knox 1991). While there is a handful of notable exceptions (Henig 1980; Friedenfels 1992), it is generally agreed that historic preservation and gentrification are linked in a meaningful way (O'Loughlin and Munski 1979; Jager 1986; Lees 1994; Ley 1996; Smith 1998; Betancur, Domeyko and Wright 2001; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008). Yet surprisingly little quantitative research has been done to clarify the exact nature of this relationship and the need for a detailed study persists (Clark 2005), particularly at the scale of a single city and its diverse neighborhoods. This research proceeds from the assumption that historic preservation has largely been the purview of the middle- and upper-classes. This is evident, for example, in the use of Federal tax credits for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, which require a “substantial rehabilitation” and assumes ipso facto that a property owner has the capital to undertake such a project. The same holds true of the State of Illinois’ tax assessment freeze program, which requires an owner to invest at least 25% of the fair market value of his or her property into historic rehabilitation efforts. To use historic preservation as a tool to upgrade urban neighborhoods thus represents a form of class-based intervention into the built environment. It provides wealthier members of a community with public tools that can be used to change the value of a neighborhood (Vojnovic 2000) and excludes less-wealthy members of the community from enjoying these benefits. Through assessment and rent increases this can also change the demographic makeup of a neighborhood. Such a class-based element is central to gentrification but absent from nearly all discussions of historic preservation. Hurley described this as preservation’s underlying elitist streak: “In the worst-case scenarios, which regrettably transpired all too often, an elite bias in the application of history justified the displacement of poorer residents, or at the very least 6 inured newcomers to the social costs of the process known as gentrification” (Hurley 2010, p. 26). This research begins with two exploratory quantitative methods: principal components analysis (PCA) and K-Means clustering. Together these serve as a means of providing direction to the qualitative analysis that follows. The purpose of the PCA and cluster analysis is specifically to identify upgrading outcomes in Chicago, and the census tracts that are potentially experiencing gentrification. First, PCA is performed on standardized, tract-level, change variables from the 1970 and 2000 censuses. Based on the results of the PCA, census tracts are then grouped into clusters experiencing similar scales of gentrification using the K-Means clustering technique. Qualitative site analysis is then carried out to ensure that the neighborhoods identified in the quantitative analysis have, in fact, experienced gentrification. This ground-truthing exercise is necessary because gentrification cannot be revealed from quantitative analysis alone (Wyly and Hammel 1998; Wyly and Hammel 1999). Next, historic preservation data are introduced to reveal where in Chicago preservation has occurred and where it coincides with the gentrification cluster identified in the PCA and cluster analysis. Preservation data are aggregated into census tracts, and census tracts into Chicago Community Areas (CCAs). This allows for a ranking of tracts and CCAs by the level of preservation activity present within their boundaries. Based on the quantitative analysis, ground-truthing, and evaluation of historic preservation data, three case study neighborhoods—single census tracts within three CCAs—are identified for in-depth qualitative analysis. This analysis allows for an exploration of the diversity of the local redevelopment process, the agents involved, the preservation programs utilized, and the nature of residential displacement. 7 1.2 The Context of Chicago Chicago is an ideal subject for the study of the relationship between historic preservation and a process of urban restructuring like gentrification. The city is fairly typical in its pattern of growth and decline over the course of the 20th century. But unlike Detroit and other Midwestern cities, where decline has been steady and virtually uninterrupted, Chicago experienced a rebound that was attributable, in part, to the presence of social and physical upgrading in certain city neighborhoods. The city is also a self-proclaimed birthplace of some of the first non-derivative, uniquely American forms and styles of architecture. Historic preservation, while not universally supported by local politicians, developers, or even residents, still plays a significant role in how Chicagoans see their city and how it is marketed to the world. Chicago’s population, economy, and physical form grew steadily between the final quarter of the 19th century and the 1950s (Department of Development and Planning 1976; Cronon 1991; Cutler 2006). Decline set in during the 1960s, as the city began to shed its industrial employment base and the burgeoning suburbs siphoned off much of the metropolitan region’s growth in population, investment, and employment. Dire predictions of the sustainability of Chicago and other Rust Belt cities were commonplace during the 1960s and 1970s. Yet in a city the size of Chicago, the vast physical accumulation of nearly a century of growth and development remained. Through debased by disinvestment, abandonment, and various government urban renewal projects, much of the city’s physical fabric was intact. A reconnaissance, or “windshield,” survey of potentially historic buildings undertaken by the city government between 1985 and 1995 revealed the breadth of built history that Chicago still possessed [Figure 1.1]. The presence of these handcrafted and unique historic buildings was one of several factors that drew 8 residents to the dense, pre-automobile neighborhoods on Chicago’s north side beginning in the 1960s. With this newfound appreciation for old urban neighborhoods, the dual forces of gentrification and historic preservation aligned in a way that would transform many of the city’s enclaves in the last three decades of the 20th century. 9 Figure 1.1: Potentially historic properties identified during the 1985-1995 Chicago Historic Resources Survey, City of Chicago. 10 The city of Chicago, exclusive of its suburbs, is a 228-square mile metropolis of nearly 2,700,000 residents that hugs the Lake Michigan shoreline in northeastern Illinois (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). In 1837, when the city was incorporated, it was approximately ten square miles of sparsely developed land along the Chicago and Calumet rivers. With the westward expansion of settlement in the United States, the city grew through migration and foreign immigration, and eventually by annexing unincorporated nearby areas. The largest annexation occurred in 1889 when 125 square miles were added to the city, along with 225,000 residents, and Chicago earned its longstanding title as “second city” (U.S. Census Bureau 1998). It was during this annexation that two of the case study neighborhoods in this dissertation, Uptown and Edgewater, were incorporated into the city. By 1900, the city sprawled across 185 square miles of former marsh and prairie. Its boundaries were last expanded a half-century later, in 1956, with the annexation of township land to its northwest, where O’Hare International Airport would later be established. Much of the building stock that would later be valued by gentrifiers and preservationists alike was erected during the high-growth period between 1871, the year of the Great Chicago Fire, and the onset of the Great Depression in the late-1920s. By 1970 most this building stock was between fifty and one hundred years old. Constructed during this fertile period were many of the city’s famous downtown skyscrapers, as well as entire neighborhoods of vernacular workers’ housing [Figure 1.2], Victorian “greystone” row houses [Figure 1.3], courtyard apartments, Prairie School houses [Figure 1.4], and ubiquitous Chicago bungalows. These handcrafted forms of architecture collectively created richly varied neighborhoods that stood in contrast to the 11 mass-produced, machine-made housing tracts that dominated the post-war landscape, particularly in the suburbs [Figure 1.5]. Figure 1.2: Worker's housing in the Pilsen neighborhood. Source: author. Figure 1.3: Greystones in the Andersonville neighborhood. Source: author. 12 Figure 1.4: Prairie School house in the Edgewater neighborhood. Source: author. Figure 1.5: Aerial view of the Chicago suburb of Park Forest in 1952. Source: Park Forest Public Library. 13 The buildings of Chicago’s older neighborhoods had been erected by, and for, a predominantly Yankee and European immigrant population. They were built to accommodate the throngs of blue collar workers who were drawn in large numbers to the opportunities available in the factories, meatpacking plants, breweries, warehouses, and commercial outlets of the burgeoning inland metropolis (Lewis 2008). However, World War I effectively put an end to immigration from Europe, and African Americans fleeing the Jim Crow South began filling shortages in the city’s labor pool created by the war. This Great Migration lasted from 1916 through the Second World War and into the early-1970s. It brought over 500,000 southern blacks to the city. However, Chicago did not prove to be as color-blind and tolerant as many of these migrants had hoped. Racially restrictive covenants limited where blacks could find housing within the contested spaces of the highly race-sensitive city.2 Most blacks originally settled in a concentrated strip along South State Street, between 22nd and 31st streets on the near south side. This area earned the nickname, the “Black Belt.” Over time, the city’s black population expanded beyond this belt to include large swathes of formerly white parts of the South and West Sides (Hirsch 1983), including Bronzeville, the neighborhood now recognized for its significance to the history of African-Americans in Chicago (Boyd 2000; Huebner 2000; 2009). Ultimately, the massive influx of nonwhite residents to Chicago was a “push” factor that worked in conjunction with the “pull” of suburbanization to facilitate white flight after World War II. Duplicitous real estate practices like blockbusting were common and accelerated this process (Hirsch 1983; Hirsch 2000; Seligman 2001; Seligman 2005). 2 Many white neighborhoods on the city’s South Side established covenants as early as 1916. Among these were the Near North and Humboldt Park neighborhoods to the north and west of the downtown. To the south, covenants were common in Hyde Park and Kenwood, near the University of Chicago, and in Englewood, Park Manor, Beverly, and Washington Heights (Seligman 2001; Hirsch 1983). 14 Before 1950, American cities were largely autonomous and operated with little State or Federal intervention. According to Altshuler and Luberoff, this was an era when “[l]ocalities received little aid from higher levels of government, had limited resources, were generally reactive in their capital investment strategies, and almost never imposed significant disruption on the existing built-up precincts” (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003, p. 8). Cities dominated the economic landscape in this era and faced little competition except from each other—and certainly not from the less influential suburbs. As centers for employment and culture, they could still readily attract new residents from rural areas and abroad, and businesses benefited from the concentration of unskilled labor and ancillary service sector employment. Private investment and development concentrated in the city itself. The post-1950 era was politically and economically much different. In this new era Chicago and other American cities were transformed through the infusion of Federal money and Federally-subsidized “mega-projects” (Bennett 1990; Altshuler and Luberoff 2003). These projects typically served one of two purposes: to facilitate growth at the metropolitan scale or to correct problems in the city that were often the direct result of growth in the suburbs. Federal and State highway construction began the process of decentralization at the metropolitan scale. In the Chicago region, three major expressways were all completed by the end of the 1960s to accommodate the explosive growth in the number of registered drivers, many of them suburban commuters (Condit 1974). Each of these expressways cut extended swathes through older, and often poor, city neighborhoods. Within the city itself, large Federally-funded public building projects were also completed during this era. Many of these had a strong social welfare component like the provision of affordable housing. Of these, perhaps the one with the most significant impact on city’s population and its physical face was the Chicago 15 Housing Authority’s vast array of public housing blocks located in primarily black neighborhoods on the city’s south and west sides (Condit 1974; Hirsch 1983; de Wit 1993; Venkatesh 2002). By the late-1960s, support for large-scale public projects began to wane with the growing awareness of their ineffectualness and their disruptive effects on residents and neighborhoods. Reflective of this trend was the gradual shift in thinking about urban renewal. Instead of “tabula rasa” projects that relied exclusively on sweeping clearance and new modernist construction, emphasis was placed on a stronger conservation component that would help stabilize deteriorated, but salvageable, neighborhoods (Hirsch 1983). Politically empowered neighborhoods like Lincoln Park avoided wholesale renewal because residents were successfully able to lobby for conservation and surgical demolition of blighted buildings and blocks. In tandem with conservation, a growing public interest in the historic built environment thrust historic preservation into the limelight in Chicago and other industrial cities—New York in particular. In 1963 the historic Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan was demolished. This event is widely considered a watershed moment for the preservation movement in the United States, as well as a catalyst for the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 (Fitch 1992). Spurred by the enactment of this groundbreaking law, many American cities adopted their own local landmarks ordinances, Chicago included. This dissertation focuses on Chicago between 1970 and 2000, a period of declining government involvement in American cities, particularly through social welfare projects, and the concomitant growth in public-private partnerships like those that form the basis of historic preservation. This period straddles Chicago’s transition from an industrial, Midwestern hub to a first-tier city in the global metropolitan hierarchy (Abu16 Lughod 1999; Sassen 2004). Larry Bennett describes this era as a transformative one in which Chicago entered its current “Third City” stage—the city’s two previous incarnations being those of industrial expansion and urban growth followed by contraction and decline (Bennett 2010). In this developmental stage, Chicago solidified its role as a diversified center for international business and finance, commodities and securities exchanges, transportation and conference-hosting facilities, entertainment and culture, tourism, and higher education. A part of Chicago’s reemergence involved the work of the public sector at all levels, which labored to create an entrepreneurial environment that attracted (or retained) new investors and residents and allowed the city to compete on an increasingly globalized economic stage. Preservation-fueled upgrading was actively courted by city and business leaders during the 1970-2000 period as a way to market neighborhoods and to minimize, through public-private partnerships, private risk in revalorizing derelict neighborhoods. Thus preservation was not simply a vehicle to commemorate history, but rather a means to forge unique spaces for reinvestment that catered to the consumption practices of more affluent residents. Historic preservation not only earmarked neighborhoods for upgrading, it also solidified the class dimension of gentrified neighborhoods. 1.3 Overview of Chapters A total of eight chapters make up this dissertation with the first being this introductory chapter. Chapter two explores the changing theories of gentrification and the various ideological camps within this diverse research area. It also provides an overview of the vast body of literature on gentrification. This is both invaluable to this dissertation and critical to understanding the trends in the research that are observable over the decades 17 since gentrification was first identified in the context of 1960s London and the term “gentrification” coined. The evolution of gentrification research mirrors changes in many other disciplines involved broadly in the study of cities, real estate, and urban demographics. This review will also reaffirm the theoretical relevancy of understanding the diversity of gentrification and the importance of exploring capital reinvestment and displacement processes through broader lenses. This frames gentrification as a much more complex process than originally proposed by Ruth Glass in the mid-1960s (Glass 1964). The quantitative research component constitutes all of chapter three. Again, this dissertation adopts a two-pronged approach to the study of gentrification by exploring it both from a quantitative and qualitative perspective. The reason for this is that the former lacks necessary data to allow for nuanced discussions of the physical changes underway in gentrifying neighborhoods, while the latter is broadly impressionistic in its analysis. This chapter discusses the data sets used in this research—how they were obtained and transformed, as well as inherent problems with the data—and the quantitative methods used to analyze them. The primary result is a cluster of similarlyupgrading census tracts from which the three case study neighborhoods were selected and qualitatively analyzed. Chapter four is devoted to the exploration of historic preservation, both as broader national policy and more specifically within the context of Chicago. The focus of this research is governmental historic preservation programs and initiatives, since a goal of this research is to tease out and better understand the public sector’s role in creating value in neighborhoods and in facilitating gentrification (Gold 1976). Jakle and Wilson capture this well in his discussion of what he terms “historic district zoning”: 18 “Historic district zoning, like zoning generally, has ensured that contiguous properties have compatible uses. It has sought to minimize market externalities or spillover damages from contiguity. It seeks to lower uncertainty regarding future land uses by variously restraining development. By so labeling areas, zoning not only verifies exchange and use values, but creates them. Once a historic district is set apart from the other spaces of a city, a basis for defining social status accrues. The property resources of the zone are seen to be in finite supply—a basis for symbolizing status. Once revitalized, historic districts clearly symbolize material success” (Jakle and Wilson 1992, p. 242). This preservation chapter also includes a discussion of the field’s theoretical underpinnings, its broad societal goals, and its operation at the three primary levels of government—Federal, state, and local. Preservation programs, laws, and incentives are also explored in the specific context of Chicago. Chapters five, six, and seven are each dedicated to a single case study neighborhood as identified by the quantitative component of this research. Neighborhoods in the Lincoln Park, Uptown, and Edgewater Chicago Community Areas (CCAs) are explored in these chapters. Each neighborhood differs in the availability or use of public historic preservation programs and shows how this can abet, shape, or mitigate the process of gentrification. Since the case studies rely on field work and the qualitative evaluation of the neighborhoods, these chapters include many images that convey gentrification’s visual impacts. In the case of Lincoln Park, for example, these impacts are glaring and difficult to overlook. Lincoln Park serves as the identifying, baseline neighborhood in the cluster analysis and provides telltale examples of gentrification’s many variants, including new-build gentrification and super-gentrification. Subtler forms are found in the other two case study neighborhoods and reflect the more tenuous nature of gentrification in each. This is due to the presence of a sizable—yet empowered—poor population in Uptown and an ensconced middle class in Edgewater. 19 The dissertation concludes with chapter eight, a summary of the research and its contributions to the study of gentrification, historic preservation, and urban geography generally. The concluding chapter also provides insight into the policy implications and relevance of this research. In addition, the chapter ends by offering prognostications as to the future of research in this area. 20 Chapter 2: Gentrification Literature Review 2.1 Introduction In the past forty years, neighborhoods with certain characteristics in former industrial cities like Chicago have attracted investors searching for new places to invest their capital. These same neighborhoods have also become desirable places for property owners seeking the amenities of urban life (Hamnett 1991). This “return to the city” movement of both investment capital and middle-class residents is a significant facet of post-World War II urbanism. In the 1960s, when the phenomenon was first acknowledged, it stood out because it ran counter to the accepted pattern of suburban growth/central city decline that had quickly become synonymous with metropolitan areas in the United States, where there were skyrocketing demands for new housing and lagging controls over development. This chapter explores gentrification with an eye toward American cities and to Chicago in particular. It examines the theoretical frameworks that researchers have used to describe the characteristics of gentrification and to explain its causes and consequences. Like other complex urban processes, gentrification has been far from monolithic in its operation. It is a dynamic process that has evolved significantly over time and reflects the idiosyncrasies of place. The nature and scope of gentrification in the 1960s, when the phenomenon was first identified, are quite different from those of today. A comparison of early and more recent manifestations reveals differences in the actors that are involved in the process and in the scale at which gentrification reshapes a city. It has evolved from an individualized, grassroots, ad hoc intervention into the urban landscape to one that has, in a sense, become an urban restructuring strategy unto itself and has increasingly involved large outlays of private capital leveraged alongside public subsidies. This changing nature of gentrification, and in particular the recent role of 21 government in facilitating the process, runs as an underlying thread through this dissertation. 2.2 Gentrification Defined The term “gentrification” was coined by British sociologist Ruth Glass in her 1964 study of the physical and social transformation underway in Islington, a working-class neighborhood in London (Glass 1964). Glass’s description of London at that time remains one of the most memorable, and most cited, to this day: One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes—upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages—two rooms up and two down—have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences. Larger Victorian houses, downgraded in an earlier or recent period—which were used as lodging houses or were otherwise in multiple occupation—have been upgraded once again. Nowadays, many of these houses are being subdivided into costly flats or ‘houselets’ (in terms of the new real estate snob jargon). The current social status and value of such dwellings are frequently in inverse relation to their status, and in any case enormously inflated by comparison with previous levels in their neighborhoods. Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working class occupiers are displaced and the social character of the district is changed (Glass 1964, p. xviii). To be sure, gentrification existed as an urban phenomenon before Glass called attention to it in the 1960s (Gale 1984; Smith 1996). Glass was simply the first to use the term to describe an unfamiliar process she was witnessing firsthand. This was a process in which older, lower-income neighborhoods were receiving an influx of investment and wealthier residents—the “gentry”—after years of disinvestment and physical decline. Glass identified several social and physical factors that characterized gentrification: a change from lower- to middle- or upper-class residents; a tenurial change in property from rental to owned; the presence of desirable architecture—in the case of Islington buildings from the Victorian era; a change in the density of housing units, as buildings were reconfigured to accommodate fewer and larger “upgraded” units; 22 the marketing of newly gentrified properties (euphemistically called “houselets”) and entire neighborhoods; and the important element of displacement as wealthier residents replaced the poor. The transformation that Glass observed was remarkable to her and to early gentrification researchers who followed because it contravened accepted thinking about how cities in the twentieth century were thought to develop. Over time, residents were supposed to “trade upward” as their economic situation improved. The case of Islington marked an unexpected reversal of the outward flow of wealthier residents and capital investment from older inner-city neighborhoods to newer suburbs. Gentrification thus ran contrary to the influential ecological model championed by Chicago School sociologists and informed by neoclassical economics. This model held that metropolitan areas tended toward equilibrium, with residential groups sorting into “natural areas” in neighborhoods across the urban landscape (Bulmer 1984; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008). Urban land market models from the 1950s and 1960s predicted that demand for space exerted such pull that consumers were willing to trade the advantages of proximity to downtown for life in the outlying, low-density, and demographically homogeneous suburbs (Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008). Gentrification turned this prediction on its head. 2.3 The Geography of Gentrification Research The academic literature on gentrification now spans five decades and shows remarkable breadth in its approach. Scholars have focused on the major cities of North America, Western Europe, and Australia, and in particular on global centers like New York and London. In recent years there has been increasing interest in gentrification in cities of the newly capitalist Eastern Europe (Kauko 2009) and especially within the emerging economies of Asia—China in particular (Wu 2004; He 2007; Ren 2008; Wang and Lee 2008; Zhang 2008; Su 2010). Several studies from this latter region examine 23 the challenges facing historic preservation in cities like Shanghai and Beijing that are undergoing swift physical transformation. The context of urban renewal in China mirrors, in broad ways, that of the United States during the watershed decades of the 1950s and 1960s. In the American context, Chicago is well represented within the body of literature on gentrification. Certain neighborhoods within Chicago have emerged as foci for research. Among these are the traditional seats of gentrification, including Lincoln Park (Wyly and Hammel 1998; Patton 2002; Hudspeth 2003; Wyly and Hammel 2003; Bennett 2005; Weber, Doussard, Bhatta and McGrath 2006; Betancur 2011) and Lake View (Bennett 1990; Patton 2002; Hudspeth 2003; Wyly and Hammel 2003; Bennett 2005; Betancur 2011). Both of these gentrified early. Neighborhoods removed from the original sites of gentrification have also seen much research. Among these are the Douglas neighborhood (Wyly and Hammel 2003; Bennett 2005); Edgewater (Maly and Leachman 1998; Patton 2002); the Near West Side (Hudspeth 2003; Wyly and Hammel 2003; Bennett 2005; Wilson 2006); River North (Wyly and Hammel 1998; Bennett 2005), the South Loop (Rast 2001; Bennett 2005), and Uptown (Maly and Leachman 1998; Hudspeth 2003; Wyly and Hammel 2003; Brown-Saracino 2004; Brown-Saracino 2007; Brown-Saracino 2009; Betancur 2011). Two additional neighborhoods merit individual recognition. The many studies of gentrification in the Pilsen neighborhood have centered on the relations between the existing population, largely working class and of Latino origin, and the wealthier, white gentrifiers (Wilson, Wouters and Grammenos 2004; Betancur 2005; Curran 2006; Pacyga 2009; Bennett 2010; Bader 2011; Betancur 2011). The literature on the West Town/Logan Square/Humboldt Park area, which includes the neighborhoods of Bucktown, Ukrainian Village, and Wicker Park, has focused on the role of artists and culture in facilitating the process of gentrification 24 (Metzgar 1999; Betancur, Domeyko and Wright 2001; Betancur 2002; Lloyd 2002; Perez 2002; Hudspeth 2003; Wyly and Hammel 2003; Lloyd 2004; Bennett 2005; Weber, Doussard, Bhatta and McGrath 2006; Wilson 2006; Baxter 2009; Bennett 2010; Bader 2011; Betancur 2011). Studies of Wicker Park in particular have examined the response of existing residents, who in the 1990s fought against gentrification and displacement more stridently than those in other parts of Chicago. 2.4 Gentrification as Social and Physical Upgrading Gentrification has changed since Glass first coined the term in the 1960s; its many permutations and new forms will be discussed later. Nevertheless, two critical dimensions serve as cornerstones to any discussion of the process. The first is class change. This involves the social upgrading of a neighborhood as members of a higher economic class replace those of a lower one. The second dimension typically accompanies the first and involves the material improvement of buildings through capital investment: in other words, the physical upgrading of a neighborhood. In traditional gentrification models, repopulation takes place after the middle class abandons a neighborhood and reinvestment occurs after a period of prolonged disinvestment. Clay’s stage model of traditional gentrification captures these conditions (Clay 1979). However, both have been challenged in recent research (Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). For example, “super-gentrification” involves wealthy gentrifiers—“financifiers,” in Lees’ words (Lees 2000)—who displace less wealthy residents, but ones who are by no means poor or even marginal (Lees 2003). The Brooklyn Heights neighborhood of New York and Barnsbury in London have been held up as paradigmatic examples of supergentrification (Lees 2003; Butler and Lees 2006). Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood is another likely example. 25 Similarly, “new-build gentrification” bypasses the rehabilitation of existing structures altogether and instead involves new construction (Davidson and Lees 2010; Rose 2010) [Figures 2.1-2.2]. As will be seen in the chapter on Lincoln Park, where new-build gentrification is rife, developers and property owners have attempted to capitalize on the past by designing new “old” buildings. This would suggest that a distinct “preservation gentrification” aesthetic exists. In essence, they attempt to replicate the non-replicable: the antiquated artisanship, rare materials, and most importantly, the sense of unique history and timelessness that are present in legitimately old buildings. Mills recognized this, how new-build gentrification often borrows liberally from historic architectural forms (Mills 1988). So, too, has Suchar, who more recently noted that “[w]hen the cost of retrofitting [an existing] property and full rehabilitation competes with the cost of new construction, the urban romanticism of earlier pioneers [i.e. gentrifiers] gives way to the luxury townhouse or urban mansion, and new ‘old’ construction” (Suchar 2006, p. 74). While gentrification may have evolved in its specifics, change through upgrading remains an essential ingredient. For a neighborhood to be considered “gentrified” or “gentrifying” some evidence of social and physical upgrading typically need to be present (Clark 2005; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). However, not every upgrading neighborhood is a gentrifying neighborhood, and there is no definitive threshold after which the former becomes the latter. Gentrification is a notoriously difficult to pin down (Wyly and Hammel 1998; Wyly 1999), which is part of the reason a dual quantitative and qualitative approach is used here. 26 Figure 2.1: New-build residential block in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. Source: author. Figure 2.2: New-build condominiums in the Uptown neighborhood. Source: author. Class Change/Social Upgrading Jason Hackworth describes gentrification simply as “the production of urban space for progressively more affluent users” (Hackworth 2002). This is an appropriate 27 lens through which to view the process because it offers flexibility that other definitions, ones that frame gentrification in terms of rich and poor, have lacked. As mentioned earlier, lower-class status among neighborhood residents is no longer a prerequisite for gentrification. Because super-gentrification (Lees 2003), new-build gentrification, and other mutations mark a shift away from the traditional gentrification model in which the wealthy displace the poor, recent researchers have even called for a “decoupling” of gentrification and class (Butler 2003). However, most researchers maintain that this wrongly removes socioeconomics from the calculus of gentrification and continue to assert the centrality of class in this field of study (Smith and LeFaivre 1984; Clark 2005; Butler 2007; Wacquant 2008; Davidson and Lees 2010). The current dissertation continues in this vein, with class as the conceptual core of gentrification. Class change serves as a point of departure in gentrification research. However, it is not sufficient on its own to explain the forces that transform neighborhoods. Gentrification research begins with class and expands to include or emphasize other critical dimensions. These include all manner of topics: the power inequalities between gentrifiers and displaced residents; the social, political, and economic conditions that cause neighborhoods to decline; and the conditions that facilitate their return to more “productive” economic uses. Race, ethnicity, gender, and age are also inextricably woven into gentrification, although the dynamics of class are paramount (Cybriwsky 1978; Kasinitz 1988; Wyly and Hammel 2004; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Betancur 2011; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). Gentrifiers, as a class, share certain demographic and socioeconomic characteristics that are well-established in the literature (Galster and Peacock 1986; Ley 1986; Schuler, Kent and Monroe 1992; Bourne 1993; Ley 1993; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Wyly and Hammel 1998; Wyly 1999; Atkinson 2000; Kennedy and Leonard 2001; 28 Ley, Tutchener and Cunningham 2002; Wyly and Hammel 2004; Gotham 2005; Heidkamp and Lucas 2006; Gladstone and Preau 2008; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). They are typically white-collar professionals in positions of employment that require higher levels of educational attainment. They have higher incomes and fewer than the average number of children, if any children at all. They can afford to purchase housing instead of renting. Race and ethnicity in this “erasure” process, of course, is central (Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Knapp and Vojnovic 2013). Gentrification reverses the decades-old trend of minority groups filling the urban vacuum created through white flight and gentrifying neighborhoods traditionally see an aggregate increase in the white population. Nevertheless, black gentrifiers have also been identified in the context of African-American neighborhoods (Boyd 2000; Boyd 2005; Pattillo 2007). If gentrifiers are wealthier, better-educated with professional jobs and smaller families, and typically white, then non-gentrifiers can be thought of in the reverse: poorer and less-educated minority groups with fewer employment prospects in the increasingly professionalized city. They have larger families and households are frequently female-headed (Henig 1980). Changes in these characteristics are revealed in studies that use of data from multiple decennial censuses. These changes serve as indicators of the existence of gentrification and its corollary, displacement. The influx of gentrifiers and their capital in a neighborhood causes change that can impact existing residents in negative ways. In traditional models of gentrification (for example, Clay 1979; Gale 1979), improvements to existing buildings cause property values to rise, and along with them neighborhood-level costs of living, property taxes, and rent. Unable to afford the escalating costs of upgraded housing and services, 29 existing residents are displaced and potential new residents are passively “priced out” of the local market (Marcuse 1985; Freeman 2005). Additional stresses are placed on affordable housing through other means. Residential rental units are often converted into owner-occupied units through a process Glass described as one of “tenurial transformation” and others as “deconversion” (Sinkevitch 2004; Atkinson and Bridge 2005; Walks and Maaranen 2008). For example, in Lincoln Park in the 1980s, “[d]econversion became all the rage: not only were rooming houses returned to their original configuration of large apartments, but structures built as two- and three-flats were remodeled into luxurious single-family residences” (Sinkevitch 2004, p. 191). As a result of deconversion of apartment buildings and single-room occupancy (SRO) units, vacancies decrease and, through simple supply and demand, a shortage of affordable housing develops. The demographic makeup of a gentrifying neighborhood changes and population densities have been shown to decrease, which can impact schools and other neighborhood services on which existing residents depend. Sieber notes these changes in his discussion of the “brownstoning”—a euphemism for gentrification in which a specific building type became synonymous with the process—of parts of Brooklyn. He writes: “Not only did brownstoning reduce the number of available apartments units… but the modal number of people occupying a brownstoner building was thus quite low when compared to the old-time pattern” (Sieber 1987, p. 57). These processes of change are given additional momentum through marketing and promotion by real estate agents, developers, and others who tout the virtues of the newly “discovered” neighborhood. In doing so they accelerate the transformations that are already underway (Perkins, Thorns and Newton 2008). 30 Yet, not all displacement occurs through passive, economic means. Active harassment and the eviction of residents by private landlords seeking to exact higher rents has long been documented in gentrifying neighborhoods (Wyly and Hammel 2001; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008). The closure and demolition of public housing estates and eviction of tenants further exacerbates the shortage of affordable housing in gentrifying areas. Chicago’s Cabrini-Green public housing estate has been the subject of much literature in this vein (Hackworth 2007; Miller 2008; Papachristos, Smith, Scherer and Fugiero 2011). Smith’s “revanchist city” theory helps shed light on the social repercussions of declines in affordable housing (Smith 1996). As an urban strategy, revanchist urban governance involves the criminalization of homelessness, begging, and other perceived threats to civic order. This is undertaken as a means of pacifying and sanitizing public space for the gentrifying middle classes (Mitchell 1997; MacLeod 2002; Niedt 2006; Uitermark and Duyvendak 2008). The net result of changes brought about by gentrification is dislocation and alienation among existing residents. This exacerbates social problems like homelessness as communities are subjected to exogenous forces of change and residents often feel powerless to affect processes that can adversely impact their lives (Mitchell 1997; Slater, Curran and Lees 2004; Newman and Wyly 2005; Newman and Wyly 2006). At particular risk are disenfranchised and politically-disconnected members of the community. Traditionally this has included the poor, minorities, women, the elderly, and non-professional workers. With respect to the last group, gentrification and the attendant NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) phenomenon have also been implicated in the forcing out of urban factories, the spare remnants of the industrial era that still offer employment opportunities to skilled blue collar workers (Curran 2004). Cities like Chicago have made efforts to actively retain industry and blue collar jobs in gentrifying 31 neighborhoods, but with limited success (Rast 2001; Rast 2005). Gentrification is thus an extremely contentious social process with both winners and losers. Recent literature deemphasizes the traditional economic and physical determinants of gentrification and concentrates instead on the individual social characteristics of these winners and losers (Pattillo 2007; Brown-Saracino 2009). Capital Improvements/Physical Upgrading Members of the gentry class that repopulated Glass’s inner-city London of the 1960s did not elect to live in neighborhoods with residents of their own class. Rather, as Glass herself observed and others have since noted, members of this mobile gentry were drawn to real estate and neighborhoods with specific physical characteristics (Glass 1964; Lee and Mergenhagen 1984; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Wyly and Hammel 1998; Torrens and Nara 2007). Clark captures this in his expansion of Slater’s flexible definition of gentrification by integrating its social and physical aspects: Gentrification is a process involving a change in the population of landusers such that the new users are of a higher socio-economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital. The greater the difference in socio-economic status, the more noticeable the process… (Clark 2005, p. 258). Several characteristics related to physical upgrading are indicators of neighborhoods where gentrification is likely to occur. Two are important to this research: the relative affordability of real estate in devalorized neighborhoods and the architectural uniqueness of old buildings, both individually and as elements within a neighborhood ensemble (O'Loughlin and Munski 1979; Jager 1986; London, Lee and Lipton 1986; Schuler, Kent and Monroe 1992). Traditionally, neighborhoods that are “affordable” and ripe for gentrification have been those in physical decline, where capital reinvestment— while not certain to produce positive returns—is seen as potentially profitable to investors. Thus they are worthy of any associated redevelopment risks (Smith 1979). 32 These neighborhoods have experienced disinvestment in their buildings and infrastructure and often outright abandonment (Marcuse 1986). As a result, property values and rents have decreased, often precipitously. However, as the process of super-gentrification makes evident, dereliction and decline in value are not prerequisites for gentrification. Even well-maintained housing, expensive by most standards, has been torn down in neighborhoods like Chicago’s Lincoln Park to build housing on an even grander scale, for an even wealthier clientele (Souffle 2014). As discussed in the following chapter, the public financial incentives that support private historic preservation activity do so through the physical rehabilitation of officially designated historic structures. The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program and State of Illinois’ Tax Assessment Freeze program serve to offset the costlier work involved in historic rehabilitation. In essence, these programs make neighborhoods more affordable for investors. They support capital improvements to buildings that have often suffered the physical effects of conversion to multiple units and deferred maintenance (or abandonment), and make it easier, and safer, for potential developers and homeowners to enter into a real estate market. The arrival of new investment and residents can change the value of the neighborhood. Smith astutely threads together this relationship between preservation-fueled reinvestment and gentrification: Within the larger cycle of disinvestment and reinvestment that marks gentrification, historic preservation provides a means by which disinvested properties and neighborhoods can be made economically attractive for new infusions of capital. It lubricates the cycle of reinvestment. (Smith 1998, p. 481). Neighborhoods that gentrified beginning in the 1960s were often those that fell out of favor during the immediate post-World War II period of suburbanization. Yet they 33 retained locational, aesthetic, and historical advantages not found elsewhere in the greater metropolitan area. These qualities were difficult, if not impossible, to replicate, even if they had been in demand at the time. When demand for these neighborhoods began to grow it was often driven by the housing stock’s scarcity and non-replicability. As Cohen notes in his comparison of Chicago’s historic districts with areas immediately adjacent, [h]istoric districts are on the road to becoming among the most affluent neighborhoods in Chicago. This is undoubtedly due to the scarcity value and the prime architectural quality of historic housing, something which cannot be duplicated at today’s prices (Cohen 1980, p. 10). Historic neighborhoods provided gentrifiers with an alternative to what was perceived as the mass-produced uniformity of the suburbs. At the scale of individual buildings, the architecture in these neighborhoods was often fine-grained with handcrafted detail and executed in difficult-to-replicate styles (Jager 1986). It was often constructed of expensive, durable building materials like brick and stone that could better withstand periods of disinvestment and abandonment. In contrast, architectonic detail and rare building materials were lacking in the building forms and styles popular after 1945. World War II creates, in essence, a dividing line between a period of pre-war craft production and post-war mass production. More than anything, pre-war historic buildings allowed the middle class to differentiate and distinguish itself in a post-war society of mass-produced consumer products that including suburban houses and neighborhoods. This is a key role that historic preservation has played in the process of gentrification. In Smith’s words, it has allowed middle-class gentrifiers “to distinguish themselves from the stuffed-shirt bourgeoisie above and the working class below” (Smith 1987, p. 168). 34 2.5 Traditional Explanations and Ideological Camps Over the half-century since Glass first theorized about gentrification, two camps of research emerged, each offering a different lens through which to view the process (Smith 1979; Smith 1986; Ley 1996; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008). Proponents of supply-side (production) explanations were concerned with how gentrifiable neighborhoods were produced, and framed gentrification in Marxian terms of class struggle over the acquisition and use of space in the city. Demand-side (consumption) proponents were more postmodern in their outlook and attempted to deconstruct the motivations behind gentrifiers’ new interest in urban neighborhoods. Gentrification literature from the 1980s and 1990s was colored by arguments over which of these two camps had the greatest explanatory value. By the 1990s, researchers began to acknowledge the limitations of this two-camp, either-or, approach (Hamnett 1991; Clark 1992; Lees 1994; Atkinson 2003). A recurring criticism was researchers’ fixation with defining gentrification and the “eviction of critical perspectives” that resulted (Slater 2006). Clark dismissed the perceived gulf between the two camps and instead framed supply- and demand-side theories in terms of their “commensurability” and “complementarity.” Speaking specifically to the perceived incompatibility of two gentrification “gap” theories (rent gap and value gap), he noted that the “rent gap explanation and value gap explanation are not complementary. They are rather highly meshed and compatible, fitting consistently into a single coherent view” (Clark 1992, p. 362). Supply-Side (Production) Explanations Demand-side explanations of gentrification assume an existing supply of gentrifiable housing and focus on its attractiveness to potential gentrifiers. A competing explanation, one forwarded first and most persuasively by Neil Smith, downplays the significance of gentrifiers and their “consumer sovereignty” in choosing the 35 neighborhoods they do. It instead begins by explaining the production of a supply of gentrifiable building stock. The supply-side approach “must take the role of producers as well as consumers into account” (Smith 1979, p. 540). Smith argued this in his seminal works from the late-1970s, at a time when research focused on consumer tastes for old neighborhoods and minimized the importance of how these neighborhoods had come into being in the first place—that is, on how neighborhoods had been produced through the processes of capital accumulation and the rise and fall of urban housing markets (see Bourne 1981). Supply-side theorists attempted to explain the forces that produce a supply of gentrifiable housing. A central tenet of supply-side research is the rent gap hypothesis. Smith was responsible for formulating and promoting this hypothesis in the late-1970s and much of his early work and that of others have relied on it (Smith 1979; Smith and Williams 1986; Clark 1987; Smith 1987; Badcock 1989; Hackworth and Smith 2001). The hypothesis is quite simple. It first assumes that property values in neighborhoods operate in cycles tied to the physical condition of buildings, the land they occupy, and the neighborhoods in which they are located. The value of a typical building will diminish with the passage of time and in a generally predictable way. In the post-World War II American context, rampant suburbanization was responsible for most of the disinvestment in the urban core and the resultant devaluation of urban housing. For gentrification to occur in a neighborhood, the current (capitalized) ground rent value of a building must decrease to a level lower than its potential ground rent if the building were ever to be rehabilitated and brought to a more productive use. When the gap between current and potential rent reaches a threshold, profits can be realized from purchasing the property, refurbishing it, and then either renting or selling it [Figure 2.3]. In classical gentrification (but not necessarily in variants like super-gentrification) the gap between the current and 36 potential value then closes. This closing of the rent gap through property rehabilitation, or through lot clearance and in-fill construction, makes use of the locational advantages of devalorized neighborhoods and brings back capital and new residents (Rose 1984). If enough reinvestment in the neighborhood follows then the conditions are right for wholesale neighborhood gentrification to occur. Figure 2.3: Diagram illustrating the rent gap hypothesis as originally conceptualized by Smith (Smith 1979). Using the rent gap hypothesis as a point of departure, supply-side explanations focus on how space within a city is produced and made available for new investment. In this context, the role of government, developers, private investors, and lending institutions is paramount, since it is these groups that produce urban space through their influence over local property markets (Bradford and Rubinowitz 1975). It is the role of these producers to find neighborhoods where the rent gap is most pronounced. Yet potential rent cannot be known with certainty. The process of gentrification therefore assumes a speculative quality and plays itself out unevenly between neighborhoods and 37 between cities as capital flows into places where the likelihood for profit is greatest— even from suburb into central city. As Smith notes, gentrification is a structural product of the land and housing markets. Capital flows where the rate of return is highest, and the movement of capital to the suburbs, along with the continual depreciation of inner-city capital, eventually produces the rent gap. When this gap grows sufficiently large, rehabilitation (or, for that matter, renewal) can begin to challenge the rates of return available elsewhere, and capital flows back (Smith 1979, p. 546). Producers of gentrification have attempted to find ways to minimize their risk when investing in uncertain neighborhoods. Increasingly they have found public subsidies to do so in spite of rhetoric that shuns public intervention into workings of the free market; Vojnovic’s account of Houston is a case in point (Vojnovic 2003). Local governments, particularly those of rust belt cities that lost their manufacturing bases in the deindustrializing decades following World War II, increasingly subsidize private projects. Such projects have the potential to attract higher income residents who participate in the process of revalorizing neighborhoods and bolstering the tax base. When middle class residents are pursued at nearly all cost, then little attention is given the poor and marginalized residents who are shuffled around the metropolitan area. Research into the issue of state-led gentrification has only recently seen an increase in activity (Vojnovic 2003; Vojnovic 2003; He 2007; Uitermark, Duyvendak and Kleinhans 2007; Vojnovic 2007; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). Gentrification interpreted from the point of view of supply-side theory intersects with historic preservation in very direct ways. Declining inner-city neighborhoods are often those with an older housing stock. These are places with buildings that fell out of favor during the height of suburbanization because they were considered antiquated. 38 Age was reflected in the condition of these buildings and in physical attributes like style, square footage, amenities, and location, which reflected the exigencies of an earlier era. Some buildings in these older neighborhoods went on to be deemed historic beginning in the late-1960s3. Thus, the supply of gentrifiable housing is frequently the same supply to which historic preservation activities are directed (Cohen 1980; Jager 1986). Supply-side explanations for gentrification focus squarely on the buildings themselves and the forces that rendered the neighborhoods in which they are located prime for revitalization. In this sense, one would assume that supply-side explanations offer the better framework for understanding the relationship between gentrification and historic preservation. But this is not necessarily so. While useful, supply-side explanations fail to recognize why certain ages and styles and forms of buildings and certain neighborhoods are favored by gentrifiers. While locational attributes are clearly important—proximity to job centers, for example, or amenities like parks or Lake Michigan—so, too, is the unique morphology of a neighborhood and the physical forms of the buildings within. To understand why one neighborhood gentrifies and not another, a better understanding of the vagaries of consumer taste is essential. To these ends, one necessarily turns to the second explanatory camp: demand-side explanations of gentrification. Demand-Side (Consumption) Explanations Demand-side explanations for gentrification focus on consumer preferences for urban neighborhoods. Proponents of this view have argued that in order to understand 3 At this point it is important to distinguish between “historic” and merely “old” in the context of historic preservation. In this dissertation, “historic” connotes buildings or districts that are officially designated as such, through some formal, governmental process like that of the National Register of Historic Places or the City of Chicago landmarks program. These are places, typically man-made, that are significant for their historical associations or architectural qualities. “Old” is more subjective and refers here rather loosely to places that might be considered historic but have not been designated as such. 39 gentrification, one must understand the human element that drives it (Ley 1996). Emphasis is therefore placed on the changes in society that began to occur in 1960s, and on the effects these changes have had on consumer demand for certain types of neighborhoods. People are paramount in demand-side explanations. This includes the gentrifiers themselves and their motivations as consumers. It is their tastes and demands as consumers of urban space, and not the mere availability of gentrifiable housing, that offers the best explanation for gentrification. However, providing an explanation for the demand for urban neighborhoods is no easy task. The desire of gentrifiers to reclaim older buildings in poorer, often crime-ridden neighborhoods that lack amenities like restaurants, boutique shops, and high-performing schools contradicts the traditional interpretation of such neighborhoods as being “last stops” in the neighborhood filtering process. Researchers have identified the characteristics of subgroups of gentrifiers involved in this process (Castells 1983; Lauria and Knopp 1985; Nelson 1988; Lees 1996; Ley 1996; Knopp 1997; Reed 2003; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008). Gender, age, family structure, occupation, and sexual preference play significant roles here. Single women, professionals, households with two working parents, and gays and lesbians have been especially active in the gentrification of neighborhoods in cities like New York and San Francisco. That gentrifiers are qualitatively different from those who inhabit the suburbs has been attributed, in part, to the diminishing impact of the patriarchal household that dominated American society through World War II (Markusen 1981). Others have noted the willingness of gentrifiers to postpone marriage and reproduction. Cities, in this context, are desirable because they offer a spatial concentration of residences, jobs, and commercial and entertainment venues for “singles” (Beauregard 1986), as well as a perceived sense of community and “authenticity” (Laska and Spain 40 1979; Laska, Seaman and McSeveney 1982; Palen and London 1984; Palen and London 1984; Spain and Laska 1984). By implication, new, low-density suburbs with their emphasis on residential uses fail to provide an environment where clustering based on lifestyle demands could occur. Of the researchers who subscribe to demand-side explanations of gentrification, the most influential has been David Ley. Ley’s research is known for “peopling” the study of gentrification by returning a human element that was diminished in the work of Smith and others. It focuses on demographic and social changes in Canadian cities in the postindustrial decades after World War II and examines how these changes have helped shift consumer lifestyle preferences away from the suburbs and to the inner city (Ley 1980; Ley 1986). Shaw notes that Ley has “long advocated for the need to consider aesthetics and taste to better understand gentrification and consumption practices,” and that “[b]y asking questions about taste and consumption, links between culture and capital have been made, and the production of ‘cultural capital’, particularly at the local level of gentrification” (Shaw 2005, p. 58). Ley focuses on the uniquely urban amenities that attract new, upper-income residents to certain neighborhoods within certain cities. These include public amenities like parks, hiking trails, and bicycle paths; mass transit as an alternative to personal auto use; and cultural amenities like sporting, music, and art venues. Natural features like waterfronts and scenic views serve as attractors, as do sought-after types and styles of architecture and unique elements of urban design (Ley 1989). Bridge, in particular, buildings on the issue of “culture capital” (Bridge 1994; Bridge 2001; Bridge 2003; Bridge 2006; Bridge 2007). The renewed interest in the physical characteristics of the city is interpreted as a reaction to the perceived lack of diversity of the suburbs. This demand 41 has been promoted, in no small measure, through marketing that sells the idea of inner city, “urban” living as a personal statement about one’s personality, consumption patterns, and social outlook (Mills 1988). Purchasing a historic or architecturally distinct home becomes a means of validating a resident’s status and, in the words of Knox, “signifying social distinction” (Jager 1986; Knox 1991, p. 185). Despite the demand-side emphasis on consumer preference as a stimulus for gentrification, it is recognized that lifestyle demands alone cannot create the conditions necessary for the process to occur. Ley and other demand-side theorists acknowledge that a critical mass of inner-city jobs is required to replace the unskilled labor on which manufacturing in the industrial city relied—the large, concentrated pool of residents that began to dry up in the decades following World War II (Hamnett 1991; Ley 1996). Manufacturing shrank but a new service sector grew to replace it (Beauregard 1986). Growth in the professional occupations outpaced that of unskilled jobs following the war. This new professional class was drawn in large numbers from the city to the burgeoning suburbs. Yet, as suburban housing became more expensive, and with increasing transportation costs and commute times between outlying suburbs and their downtown, professionals began to look for alternative places to live. Some found this in central city neighborhoods close to downtown jobs. Berry and others have argued that such demand for inner-city residential neighborhoods reflects the desire of these workers to be close to their places of employment (Berry 1985). Anecdotal evidence from the popular press seems to support this assertion (DeBaise 1998). Although young cohorts have typically been tied to gentrification—“yuppies” are synonymous with the process— researchers have also interpreted the “greying” American population and its growing preference for walkability, “empty nest” housing, and denser, multi-use neighborhoods as another driver of the inner-city growth (Nelson 1988). In sum, the amenities of urban 42 life may have made inner city living desirable to certain population subgroups, but the availability of professional jobs located near affordable, attractive, dense residential neighborhoods made it feasible. Demand-side explanations emphasize the availability of professional jobs in an amenity-rich urban setting as instrumental to the process of gentrification. A third factor has more to do with the physical face of cities, although it relates to the occupational shift in urban areas from places of manufacturing to professional employment. With this shift, many of the insalubrious land use conditions of industrial cities were eradicated. A cleaner deindustrialized environment resulted, and this, combined with the new availability of professional jobs, helped to make urban cores more desirable to gentrifiers. The loss of manufacturing has also freed up industrial buildings for adaptive reuse as residential “lofts” and commercial units. Zukin has written extensively on the phenomenon of “lofting” (Zukin 1982; Zukin 1987), a process of adaptive reuse of industrial spaces first noted in lower Manhattan and now a global urban phenomenon (Podmore 1998; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007; Dingle and O'Hanlon 2009). In the context of Chicago, lofting has been comparatively limited until the 2000s brought redevelopment and adaptive reuse to former industrial and office buildings west of the Loop. The primary loft district in Chicago is the Printer’s Row neighborhood and selfsame historic district in the south Loop. Many gentrification researchers have acknowledged that certain aesthetic qualities attract residents to neighborhoods and repel them from others (Jager 1986). Yet given the centrality of architecture and urban design to the process of gentrification, it is surprising that more research has not been done to quantify the physical typologies associated with gentrification. Researchers mention certain common types in passing. 43 Chris Hamnett, for example, notes that in London, “[t]he areas in which gentrification is occurring are, by and large, characterized by Georgian or Victorian terraced housing, most commonly of three stories” (Hamnett 1973, p. 252). The architectural styles and building types that are typically mentioned include the following: Georgian, Victorian, and other high-style houses (Glass 1964; Hamnett 1973); working-class row houses (e.g. “brownstones” in New York or “greystones” in Chicago) (Lees 2003; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008; Osman 2011); Federal rowhouses in cities on the eastern seaboard (Newsom 1971; Gale 1979; Williams 1988; Beauregard 1990; Gale 1991; Knox 1991; Cohen 1998; Wyly and Hammel 1998); small, single-family houses (e.g. bungalows in Chicago) (Kamin 2006); and former warehouses and industrial buildings that have been adaptively reused through their conversion to residential “lofts” or to office space (Zukin 1982; Podmore 1998; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007; Dingle and O'Hanlon 2009). The architecture favored by gentrifiers dates from the late-19th and early-20th centuries. These buildings tend to be constructed more “durable” materials like stone or brick, as opposed to “non-durable” materials like wood (Zielenbach 2000). They are handcrafted and more highly detailed than the modernist buildings and mass-produced tract homes erected after World War II. Regarding the specific building designs and the particular characteristics in demand, Knox notes how a generation of suburban baby boomers came of age with a “repressed demand for variety and symbolic ornamentation” (Knox 1991, p. 184). Brownstones, in particular, have become emblematic of the consumer preferences of gentrifiers in architecture (Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008; Osman 2011). Ultimately, however, this aesthetic of gentrification becomes commonplace and de rigueur and represents a sort of conformity that gentrifiers purport to reject in their lifestyle and consumer choices (Mills 1988). One gentrified 44 neighborhood begins to look like all others as they are “serially reproduced” across neighborhoods and cities (Harvey 1989). 2.6 Evolving Explanations Researchers began to embrace an integrated supply/demand approach in the 1980s in response to changes that moved gentrification beyond the phenomenon that Glass described in the 1960s (Hamnett 1991). As Smith acknowledged in 1996, “during the 1980s, most gentrification theorists came to some kind of rapprochement between economic and cultural explanations, production-side and consumption-side” (Smith 1996, p. 1203). This reconciliation arose from gentrification’s growth in the 1970s and 1980s due to the maturation of baby boomers and their desire for affordable housing that would also express their individuality (Myers and Pitkin 2009). Gentrification reappeared in altered form in the mid-1990s following periods of recession (Ley 1993) that had “strangled gentrification in many cities” (Hackworth 2002). This gave rise to the notion that gentrification might not be a significant urban phenomenon, after all; that gentrified neighborhoods might remain no more than “islands of renewal in seas of decay,” as Berry famously predicted (Berry 1985). Likewise, Bennett expressed doubt about gentrification’s transformational potential by asserting “gentrification, of itself, does not promise to reconstitute the property base of local municipalities or rebuild whole cities” (Bennett 1990, p. 18). What had been “strangled” in the recession and real estate downturns of the 1970s and 1990s was the grassroots movement of individuals who, through their own “sweat equity,” had gentrified narrow swathes of the city for their own personal consumption. Gentrification reemerged in the 1990s as a more professionalized and corporatized form of urban restructuring that was much broader in its impact. In this new environment, explanations that drew from both demand- and supply-side explanations seemed to provide the best 45 explanation for gentrification. Much of the literature from the 1990s through the present follows in this vein (Hamnett 1991; Lees 1994; Lees 2000; Atkinson 2004; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008). Lees in particular offered a well-articulated call to move beyond gentrification’s traditional two-camp approach and to adopt a holistic framework that draws liberally from both (Lees 1994). 2.7 Gentrification’s Diversity and Consistencies Gentrification was originally interpreted as the embourgeoisement of urban neighborhoods by middle- and upper-class gentrifiers, those with greater financial resources and more latitude in deciding where in a metropolitan region they would reside (Ley 1996). Displaced from these neighborhoods were poor and marginal existing residents. This is what Glass observed in the context of 1960s London. In the context of the United States, gentrification was also framed as a starkly racial issue wherein whites displaced non-whites, typically blacks. Yet, as urban populations have become more heterogeneous, and as cities themselves become increasingly influenced by global trends both cultural and financial, gentrification has become far more complex a process. The diverse forms it takes reflects this growing complexity (Rose 1984; Beauregard 1986; Lees 1994; Lees 1996; Van Criekingen and Decroly 2003; Smith and Graves 2005; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Van Criekingen 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). A seminal aspect of gentrification and one that remains consistent is that gentrifiers are of a higher socioeconomic class than the existing population in a neighborhood. Yet even this concept has become more open-ended, as the socioeconomics of gentrification has shown itself to be measurable on a sliding scale. Gentrifiers can hail from any stratum of the socioeconomic spectrum and not just from the gentry class (Rose 1984). In fact, one can envision gentrification in lower-class 46 neighborhoods where poor gentrifiers displace existing residents who are even poorer. The expression “gentrification” is something of a misnomer today. Perhaps less contradictory is the growth of gentrifiers at the other end of the economic spectrum through the emergence of super-gentrification fueled by the mobile global elite (Lees 2000; Lees 2003; Butler and Lees 2006; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011; Hedin, Clark, Lundholm and Malmberg 2012). Super-gentrification has been identified in New York, London, and other urban centers in the global economy. The existence of this form of gentrification has begged the question of whether disinvestment and physical decline, which have long been assumed to be prerequisites for gentrification, should even be thought of as such (Lees 2003; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). Super-gentrification even seems to call into question Smith’s rent gap thesis and specifically the closure of the gap between current and potential ground rent through traditional upgrading. In super-gentrification the gap between a site’s current and potential values could remain constant while both values increase. This would lend credence to the idea that there is always someone who is willing and able to buy into an already inflated real estate market. Gentrification’s diversity can be seen in both its social and physical manifestations. Historically the process has been synonymous with whites, much like the inversely-related process of “white flight” itself. However, non-white gentrifiers have also been identified in several American cities and this topic has been noted for its rich research potential (Lees 2000). Existing studies of non-white gentrification have primarily involved African Americans resettling historically black neighborhoods like Bronzeville and North Kenwood in Chicago or Harlem in New York (Schaffer and Smith 1986; Boyd 2000; Freeman and Rohe 2000; Boyd 2005; Freeman 2006; Pattillo 2007; 47 Boyd 2008; Hyra 2008). Gays and lesbians, associated with gentrification since the 1970s, have continued to be a salient presence in neighborhoods in many cities (Castells 1983; Lauria and Knopp 1985; Knopp 1997; Reed 2003). The Boys Town part of the Lakeview neighborhood in Chicago is one such example. University students are regarded as a force for gentrification though a process described as “studentification” (Chatterton 1999; Smith 2005). Stores, restaurants, entertainment venues, and studentoriented rental units cluster around universities in neighborhoods like Morningside Heights in New York (Columbia University’s home) and in Chicago, Rogers Park (Loyola University), Lincoln Park (DePaul University), Hyde Park (The University of Chicago), and the near west side (The University of Illinois at Chicago). In terms of physical upgrading, diverse forms of gentrification include the “lofting” of non-residential buildings (Zukin 1982; Zukin 1987; Podmore 1998; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007; Dingle and O'Hanlon 2009) and new-build gentrification (Davidson and Lees 2010; Rose 2010; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). Gentrification is also seen in the creation of nightlife and entertainment districts that attract local visitors and tourists (Boyd 2000; Bures 2001; Chatterton and Hollands 2002; Hoffman 2003; Hollands and Chatterton 2003; Markwell, Stevenson and Rowe 2004; Gotham 2005; Spirou 2006; Gladstone and Preau 2008). Finally, gentrification has been analyzed as a form of urban renewal and private-sector blockbusting in the era of neoliberal city governance (Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011), where the role of government is to encourage the workings of the private sector by limiting state intervention except to stabilize markets (Jessop 2002; Hackworth 2007). The concept of state-led gentrification (Hackworth and Smith 2001; Vojnovic 2003; Vojnovic 2003; He 2007; Uitermark, Duyvendak and Kleinhans 2007; Vojnovic 48 2007; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011) is central to this dissertation and is discussed later in this dissertation in the context of historic preservation. To be sure, the diverse types of gentrification seen in the last several decades stand in stark contrast with the more monolithic phenomenon originally described by Glass. The process is no longer simply a shuffling of the urban order whereby the white gentry supplant poor minorities through a process involving the rehabilitation of existing structures. Gentrification today is far more diverse and complex. 2.8 Concluding Remarks Having described gentrification as a transformative force within the city, this dissertation turns to a discussion of governmental historic preservation—a complementary and reciprocal activity related to gentrification in critical ways. As noted by many researchers who have worked in this area, a nearly universal prerequisite for gentrification has been the presence of “old buildings with good design or historic interest” (Pacione 2001, p. 201). Indeed, the qualities of “good design” and “historic interest” are very much like the criteria for evaluation used by the National Park Service when determining whether buildings are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Preservationists and gentrifiers seem to share an interest in historic buildings and neighborhoods, but for different reasons. This topic is explored later in this dissertation. The goal of the following chapter is to provide an overview of historic preservation in Chicago and to explore the interface between preservation and gentrification in the context of the city’s historic neighborhoods. Preservation in the United States relies on public-private partnerships to achieve the goal of preserving and interpreting historic buildings and their history. Though American preservation traces its 49 roots to Europe, and in particular to the United Kingdom, its laws, regulations, and programs create a very different environment here. Most notably, government dedicates little in the way of direct funding to save and rehabilitate historic buildings. Instead, the role of government is to promote historic preservation through honorific programs and to subsidize the upkeep of historic buildings through tax credit and reduction programs that, in a sense, transfer project risks to the sector. Preservation programs are then justified in the familiar language of trickle-down economics: promotion of a landmark through an honorific program or subsidized rehabilitation benefits the immediate neighborhood, the city, or the country as a whole. As municipal governments became enmeshed in the trickle-down ideology that began to permeate in the 1980s, they began to “act less as regulators of markets to protect marginalized residents and more as entrepreneurial agents of market processes and capital accumulation” (Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008, p.49). Increasingly, entrepreneurial cities like Chicago have supported the private use of governmental preservation programs, particularly at the Federal level, to channel resources into certain neighborhoods. The following chapters will show that these programs lubricate the process of gentrification by making the rehabilitation and reuse of old buildings less risky to investors and new residents. Moreover, the very act of designating a neighborhood as officially “historic” serves to draw attention to the neighborhood and validate its worth. 50 Chapter 3: Research Design, Data, and Quantitative Analysis 3.1 Introduction The current chapter begins with discussions of the research design and the quantitative methods used to explore the link between governmental historic preservation and gentrification in Chicago during the period 1970-2000. It introduces the decennial census data used to identify gentrification within the city of Chicago and explains how these data were gathered, processed, and rendered in a format usable for the analysis and the research. It then continues with a discussion of the results of the quantitative analysis. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the qualitative methods used to examine the three case study neighborhoods identified through the quantitative analysis. These case studies are then explored in the following chapters, where they reveal the diversity exhibited in Chicago’s gentrified and gentrifying historic neighborhoods and clarify the relationship between preservation and gentrification. As discussed earlier in this dissertation, explanations for gentrification have vacillated over the years between those that favor the production of gentrifiable neighborhoods and those that favor consumer preferences for such neighborhoods. Explanations today tend to draw on both production- and consumption-side interpretations. However, the focus of research and interest remains on the roles of private sector developers and individuals in the process of gentrification. Absent from most discussions, at least until recently (He 2007; Uitermark, Duyvendak and Kleinhans 2007), has been the public sector’s role in this process. One of the main contributions of this dissertation is that it examines how government promotes certain neighborhoods as “historic” through its honorific preservation programs and underprices the rehabilitation of buildings through its incentives, thereby effectively changing the value of these neighborhoods. This dissertation also tackles the understudied issue of gentrification’s 51 internal diversity. In so doing, it takes a unique approach since it is one of approximately five global studies that has explored gentrification at the geographic scale of an entire city (Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011) or groups of entire cities (Hedin, Clark, Lundholm and Malmberg 2012). This research follows the methods established by Podagrosi, Vojnovic, and Pigozzi (2011) in their study of Houston, but diverges to focus exclusively on one variety of governmental activity: historic preservation in the context of Chicago. Dedicated studies that attempt to synthesize and clarify the relationship between governmental preservation and gentrification are exceedingly rare in the existing body of scholarly literature (for example, see Allison 2005). Moreover, with the notable exception of research into its economic impacts, most studies of historic preservation have relied on qualitative methods. Virtually no research has attempted to explore historic preservation quantitatively, and in this dissertation, the growing corpus of data generated over the four decades since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 have been collected, transcribed, cleaned, geocoded, and analyzed. This research is unique in that it uses both quantitative and qualitative methods in its exploration of the relationship between preservation and gentrification. Such an approach was recently advocated by Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan, whose review of the current state of historic preservation research recommended that “future studies should blend quantitative and qualitative methods to develop a robust portrait of the relationship between preservation and urban revitalization,” including preservation’s role in gentrification and displacement in American cities (Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan 2014, p. 13). 52 3.2 Research Questions This dissertation poses two fundamental questions. First, can a relationship between historic preservation and gentrification be identified such that preservation can be characterized as a form of state-led gentrification? Second, can different governmental historic preservation programs and incentives, and the intensity of their implementation, be shown to relate to different forms of gentrification within Chicago’s neighborhoods? In answering these questions this dissertation expands the discourse on state-led gentrification by broadening our understanding of government’s role in the process through its various historic preservation programs. It also takes the historic preservation research into a completely new direction, one that benefits from the increasing availability of large data sets and the demand, particularly within the public sector, to account for the impact of government programs. 3.3 Research Hypotheses This research hypothesizes that gentrification has occurred in many of Chicago’s neighborhoods over the period 1970-2000 and that this process of social and physical upgrading has not been monolithic. Rather, diversity is evident in the process and some variants of gentrification are attributable to the presence of governmental historic preservation activity. This research also hypothesizes that historic preservation’s internal diversity facilitates different gentrification outcomes in neighborhoods. It acknowledges—where other studies have not—that governmental historic preservation has differing legal and programmatic mandates and administrative demands and thus cannot be thought of as a monolithic activity. To be sure, certain programs are chiefly honorific or commemorative in nature while others actively encourage the physical rehabilitation of buildings through the use of 53 financial incentives. The type of gentrification exhibited in a neighborhood reflects, to a certain degree, the nature of preservation activity involved and the intensity of its use in specific areas. The nature of preservation activity in a neighborhood thus reflects the abilities of neighborhood actors and agencies to embrace historic preservation as suited to their localized needs. It also reflects the goals and priorities that local government and private actors have for that neighborhood. 3.4 Overview of Methods Principal Components Analysis (PCA), a common data reduction technique, is used in this research to reduce the census variables describing Chicago’s population, socioeconomic, and housing characteristics to manageable and more interpretable categorical groups. K-Means cluster analysis is then performed on the PCA factor scores to group census tracts into clusters experiencing similar levels of upgrading associated with gentrification. The specific purpose of the PCA, used in tandem with the cluster analysis, is to identify upgrading outcomes and the census tracts that are potentially experiencing gentrification. This allows for the comparison of a broad area within Chicago—a cluster of grouped census tracts—that is experiencing comparable scales of social and physical upgrading over the period 1970-2000. Importantly, this can be done without regard to the internal class composition of the tracts. Of the clusters identified is this process, it is anticipated that the relevant cluster showing upgrading will include the Lincoln Park neighborhood on Chicago’s north side. Lincoln Park is widely considered to be synonymous with gentrification (Pacyga and Skerrett 1986; DeBaise 1998; Bennett 2005; Suchar 2006; Pacyga 2009; Bennett 2010) and thus serves as the most appropriate baseline for selecting additional case study neighborhoods. Lincoln 54 Park is also known for its historic built environment and is home to more examples of historic preservation activity than any other neighborhood in Chicago. The PCA and cluster analysis described above are used to identify neighborhoods experiencing similar scales of upgrading. They identify areas in Chicago experiencing comparable levels of gentrification and provide a broad understanding of the spatial patterns of gentrification over the period 1970-2000. Having selected a target cluster, spatially-referenced historic preservation data will be laid over the cluster in the subsequent chapter using a geographic information system (GIS) to identify concentrations of various types of preservation activity. Supplemented by secondary and archival research, as well as site visits, three case studies are then selected for close examination in the qualitative component of this research. This component allows a more nuanced understanding of the relationship of preservation to gentrification, since census data can provide only oblique hints at the capital reinvestment underway in a neighborhood. Moreover, historic preservation is a fundamentally visual endeavor and its true impacts on a community are best gauged through first-hand investigation, which will be illustrative of the capital reinvestment ongoing within the neighborhood. 3.5 Research Data This dissertation relies on two primary sets of data. First, in order to explore gentrification in Chicago, a body of population, socioeconomic, and housing data from the United States Census Bureau’s decennial censuses (1970-2000) were compiled, cleaned, standardized, transformed, and referenced to census tract-level spatial units. These data form the basis of the quantitative portion of this research. The use of census data in this manner follows existing research on neighborhood upgrading, gentrification, and displacement (Galster and Peacock 1986; Ley 1993; Ley 1996; Wyly 1999; Atkinson 55 2000; Helms 2003; Hudspeth 2003; Wyly and Hammel 2003; Heidkamp and Lucas 2006; Torrens and Nara 2007; Kitchen and Williams 2009). Given the dynamic nature of gentrification, it was essential to transform baseline census variables into change variables. This was undertaken following the methodology of Podagrosi, Vojnovic, and Pigozzi (2011) in their recent study of state-led gentrification in Houston. The second data set includes information on governmental historic preservation in Chicago by program area, year of designation, and amount of financial assistance (where appropriate) and reveals concentrations of preservation activity across the city. Data were obtained from the City of Chicago, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, and National Park Service. The historic preservation data are used primarily in the qualitative portion of this research to help characterize the nature of preservation activity across Chicago and specifically within the case study neighborhoods. These data are discussed in detail in chapter 4. 3.6 Gentrification Data For the quantitative portion of the research, non-spatial attribute data from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses were compiled. Baseline variables—the raw numbers collected in the censuses—were transformed into change variables to provide a means of portraying citywide population, socioeconomic, and housing transformation over the period 1970-2000. Change data from the intervening years (1970-1980, 19801990, 1990-2000) were used to supplement the analysis undertaken in qualitative portion of this research. All census data were obtained through the website of the National Historic Geographic Information System (NHGIS) of the Population Center at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Where NHGIS data were missing or 56 transcription errors were suspected, paper copies of the census records were crossreferenced. Missing data were often financial estimates (e.g. median value for housing) and likely intentionally withheld from the public record4. Other omissions of the data were likely the result of simple oversight. Population, socioeconomic, and housing variables were used in this research since gentrification has a clear relationship to changes in both the social and physical characteristics of a city. A total of twenty-three baseline variables were used [Table 3.1]. From these, a thirty-six change variables were generated [Tables 3.2-3.4]. These variables were selected because they all potentially reflect the type of change occurring in cities that would suggest the process of physical and social upgrading associated with gentrification. Much of the existing gentrification research fails to recognize the diversity inherent in the process and thus relies on far fewer variables than the number employed here. This reflects an earlier, narrower definition of gentrification, both in terms of who gentrifiers were, as a group, and where gentrification tended to occur within cities. The larger set of variables were thus used to explore the diverse and complex set of actors and processes involved in upgrading Chicago’s neighborhoods. Scholars regarded gentrification’s geographic range within cities as rather circumscribed. Berry, for example, famously likened gentrified neighborhoods to isolated “islands of renewal in seas of decay” (Berry 1985). However, Ley and others have since shown that nearly any urban neighborhood can, theoretically, be gentrified (Ley 1993; Ley 1996; Vojnovic 2003; Vojnovic 2003; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). The set of variables used in this research reflects this broader conceptualization of gentrification. It has significantly more variables than many existing studies and 4 The Census Bureau differentiates between non-applicable data (i.e. if the base value is smaller than the minimum number in the sample) and zero values. This are depicted symbolically in different ways: three dots (“…”) signifies missing, withheld, or non-applicable data and a dash (“—“) a value of zero. 57 reflects the overarching goal of exploring the diversity of gentrification and its many iterations in the context of an entire single city. Variable Description Population total (5), (6), (7), (9), (12), (13), (14), (15), (17) White total (4), (5), (11), (12), (13), (16) Black total (3), (4), (5), (12), (13), (16), (17) Hispanic total (4), (13), (17) ≥25 years age (1), (10), (12), (13) Per capita income (2), (7), (9), (10), (12), (13), (14) Median income (2), (3), (5), (7), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) Median gross rent (5), (6), (9), (10), (12), (13), (15) Families below poverty level total (7), (13) Families on PAI total (13) Female-headed households total (13) High school graduates total (1), (6), (7), (12), (13), (15) College graduates total (1), (3), (6), (7), (11), (12), (13), (15), (16) Employed residents total (1), (11), (12), (13), (15) Professional jobs total (11), (12), (13), (15), (16) Manufacturing jobs total Families total (12), (13) Households total (10), (12), (13) Housing units total (10), (12), (13), (14), (15), (17) Vacant housing units total (5), (12), (13), (17) Owner-occupied housing units total (4), (5), (7), (8), (10), (12), (13), (14), (16) Renter-occupied housing units total (4), (5), (8), (9), (10), (12), (13), (14) Median value occupied units Table 3.1: Twenty-three baseline census variables. This table includes references to studies that have relied on one or more of the gentrification indicators used in this research. Literature cited5: (1)(Atkinson 2000) (2)(Bourne 1993) (3)(Galster and Peacock 1986) (4)(Gladstone and Preau 2008) (5)(Gotham 2005) (6)(Hammel and Wyly 1996) (7)(Heidkamp and Lucas 2006) (8)(Kennedy and Leonard 2001) (9)(Ley 1986) (10)(Ley 1993) (11)(Ley, Tutchener and Cunningham 2002) (12)(Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008) (13)(Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011) (14)(Schuler, Kent and Monroe 1992) (15)(Wyly and Hammel 1998) (16)(Wyly 1999) (17)(Wyly and Hammel 2004) Data Transformations Many of the census variables in this research were usable in their original state and required no standardization prior to processing in the PCA. Among these were 5 Some of the studies cited here use indicators that are only roughly equivalent to those used in this research. For example, Ley, Tutchener, and Cunningham (2002) assess changes in the demographic makeup of Toronto and Vancouver using indices of ethnicity (British, Chinese, South Asian). These indices attempt to achieve the same overarching goal—the gauging of racial or ethnic change—as the measures of race and ethnicity (whites, blacks, Hispanics) used in this research. 58 baseline variables like population, population by race, and housing units, each of which provides total counts. Other census data needed to be transformed to obtain useable data. Examples of this include socioeconomic variables with age and gender components, levels of educational achievement, and professions. For example, in the case of the professions variable, workers classified as “professional” or “in manufacturing” were extracted from the larger dataset describing workforce characteristics. Where appropriate, values were calculated for absolute change in raw numbers, ‘percentage change,’ and ‘change in the percentage of’ for variables across the thirty-year period 1970-2000 and between each pair of chronological decades (19701980, 1980-1990, 1990-2000). The 1970-2000 data set was used in the PCA and KMeans cluster analysis, while the decade-to-decade change data sets were used in the qualitative analysis to interpret finer-grain changes in the census tracts at ten-year intervals. These calculations were done using spreadsheet software and are included in the table below [Tables 3.2-3.4]. CHANGE VARIABLES, 1970-2000: POPULATION Variable Description 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 1970-2000 % Change - total P70-00 P80-90 P90-00 P70-00 population % Change - white WP70-80a WP80-90a WP90-00a WP70-00a Change % - white WP70-80b WP80-90b WP90-00b WP70-00b % Change - black BP70-80a BP80-90a BP90-00a BP70-00a Change % - black BP70-80b BP80-90b BP90-00b BP70-00b % Change - Hispanic HP70-80a HP80-90a HP90-00a HP70-00a Change % - Hispanic HP70-80b HP80-90b HP90-00b HP70-00b % Change - ≥25 years 25Y70-80a 25Y80-90a 25Y90-00a 25Y70-00a age Change % - ≥25 years 25Y70-80b 25Y80-90b 25Y90-00b 25Y70-00b age Table 3.2: Change population census variables. Note: % Change=percentage change, Change %=change in the percentage of. CHANGE VARIABLES: SOCIOECONOMIC Variable Description 1970-1980 % Change - per capita PCI70-80 1980-1990 PCI80-90 59 1990-2000 PCI90-00 1970-2000 PCI70-00 income % Change - median INC70-80 INC80-90 INC90-00 INC70-00 household income % Change - median RNT70-80 RNT80-90 RNT90-00 RNT70-00 gross rent % Change - families POV70-80a POV80-90a POV90-00a POV70-00a below poverty level Change % - families POV70-80b POV80-90b POV90-00b POV70-00b below poverty level % Change - families on PAI70-80a PAI80-90a PAI90-00a PAI70-00a PAI Change % - families on PAI70-80b PAI80-90b PAI90-00b PAI70-00b PAI % Change - femaleFEM70-80a FEM80-90a FEM90-00a FEM70-00a headed households Change % - femaleFEM70-80b FEM80-90b FEM90-00b FEM70-00b headed households % Change - college UNI70-80a UNI80-90a UNI90-00a UNI70-00a graduates Change % - college UNI70-80b UNI80-90b UNI90-00b UNI70-00b graduates % Change - employed EMP70-80a EMP80-90a EMP90-00a EMP70-00a residents Change % - employed EMP70-80b EMP80-90b EMP90-00b EMP70-00b residents % Change - professionals PRO70-80a PRO80-90a PRO90-00a PRO70-00a Change % - professionals PRO70-80b PRO80-90b PRO90-00b PRO70-00b % Change MAN70-80a MAN80-90a MAN90-00a MAN70-00a manufacturers Change % MAN70-80b MAN80-90b MAN90-00b MAN70-00b manufacturers Table 3.3: Change socioeconomic census variables. Note: % Change=percentage change, Change %=change in the percentage of. Variables with dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator. 60 CHANGE VARIABLES: HOUSING Variable Description 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 1970-2000 % Change - families FAM70-80a FAM80-90a FAM90-00a FAM70-00a % Change - households HH70-80a HH80-90a HH90-00a HH70-00a % Change - housing units HU70-80 HU80-90 HU90-00 HU70-00 % Change - vacant units VU70-80a VU80-90a VU90-00a VU70-00a Change % - vacant units VU70-80b VU80-90b VU90-00b VU70-00b % Change - ownerOOU70-80a OOU80-90a OOU90-00a OOU70-00a occupied units Change % - ownerOOU70-80b OOU80-90b OOU90-00b OOU70-00b occupied units % Change - renterRU70-80a RU80-90a RU90-00a RU70-00a occupied units Change % - renterRU70-80b RU80-90b RU90-00b RU70-00b occupied units %Change - median value VAL70-80a VAL80-90a VAL90-00a VAL70-00a units Table 3.4: Change housing census variables. Note: % Change=percentage change, Change %=change in the percentage of. Variables with dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation using Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator. ‘Percentage change’ was calculated simply by subtracting data of the chronologically earlier census year (e.g. 1970) from its later partner (e.g. 2000), dividing the difference by the earlier year, and then multiplying by 100 to derive a percentage, ((P2-P1)/P1)*100 where P1=the observations from year one, the earlier census year (1970), and P2=observations from the later year (2000). Furthermore, ‘change in the percentage of’ was calculated using the formula ((P2/T2)*100)-((P1/T1)*100) where P1 and P2 indicate observations from the two time periods and T1 and T2 indicate the total population for these same two periods. These two calculations reveal different critical dimensions of change in the census data. As demonstrated in the example below [Table 3.5], which shows change in the Black population of a single 61 census tract in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, Black ‘% change’ 70-00 and Black ‘change in % of’ 70-00 reveal different aspects of demographic change. Tract# 6805 Total pop. (1970) Total pop. (2000) Black pop. (1970) Black pop (2000) % of % of Black Black ‘% Black tract tract absolute change’ ‘change Black Black change 70-00 in % of’ (1970) (2000) 70-00 70-00 4,959 2,217 4,613 2,180 93.02% 98.33% -2,433 -52.74% 5.31% Table 3.5: Sample tract (partial data) showing changes in black population. Between 1970 and 2000, the Black population dropped dramatically, by nearly 53%, or in absolute terms by 2,433 residents. Yet the tract also became even more racially homogenous as the Black population increased by 5.31%. That is to say, the Black share of tract 6805 increased even though there was a net loss of population. Taking this idea further, one can envision a tract where the Black population increases by 200%, for example, yet the Black share of the tract actually decreases. This would reflect changes in the other population groups—such as Whites, Hispanics, and Asians—within the census tract. When evaluating Chicago census tracts for evidence of gentrification, change variables such as these were helpful for revealing subtleties in the nature of the change. ‘Percentage change’ shows overall change in the value in question but can be highly correlated with overarching population change over the two time periods. ‘Change in the percentage of’ has its own set of potential problems. For example, this measure of structural change in a variable (e.g. Black population) is sensitive to small population size. Comparability of certain variables across census decades is problematic since the Census Bureau has not been consistent in how it collects data. An example of this is the Hispanic population. The 1970 census was the first to attempt to estimate the size of this rapidly growing ethnic group. This census posed several questions to determine 62 changes in Hispanic population but none worked particularly well in yielding counts that corresponded with pre-census estimates6. For this research, a linguistic variable— ‘native Spanish-speaker’—is used as a proxy for the “Hispanic” classification that was standardized in the post-1970 censuses. Census Tract Boundary Data The census tract provided a common spatial unit for comparing data in this research. Population, socioeconomic, and housing attribute data (and historic preservation data, which are discussed in the following chapter) were mapped by linking them to census tract polygon data that were also obtained from NHGIS. This was accomplished using GIS to join non-spatial attribute data stored in spreadsheets to spatial census tract data. A one-to-one relationship using a common field (GISJOIN) was used to join these data layers. Chicago presented a relatively simple challenge in terms of data normalization across censuses. Unlike high-growth sunbelt cities that expanded dramatically over the period 1970-2000, both in terms of their population and their geographic footprints, Chicago’s population shrank and its borders were already largely fixed by 1960. Peripheral change through annexation of surrounding areas was minimal after 1960. However, where minor changes did occur, they occurred internally [Figure 3.1]. These reflect the Census Bureau’s practice of revising the shape and area of census tracts to include an optimal number of residents per tract (approximately 4,000 residents on average, with a 2,400-8,000 resident acceptable range). Standardization over the 1970-2000 time frame was required for the few tracts that changed. Census 6 For example, see D’Vera Cohn, “Census History: Counting Hispanics.” Pew Research, Social & Demographic Trends, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/03/census-history-counting-hispanics-2/. Accessed 3/7/2013. 63 tract boundaries from the most recent year in this study, 2000, served as the base geographic level of analysis. Figure 3.1: Census tract boundaries. Orange polygons represent 1970 census boundaries while dark green lines show changes to tracts from the 2000 census. Grey represents the Chicago city limits. The use of census tract-level data had an added benefit. The city’s officiallyrecognized neighborhoods, the CCAs, were developed in the late-1920s by Ernest W. Burgess and the University of Chicago’s Social Science Research Committee as a way of establishing the shape and area of census tracts for the 1930 census (Stuart 2003). 64 These were later promulgated in recurring editions of the Local Community Fact Book. The committee identified 75 CCAs at that time; the addition of O’Hare and creation of Edgewater and Uptown from the former Uptown CCA made for the current count of 77 (Stuart 2003). These still make sense today, since the constituent census tracts have largely remained consistent. While census tract boundaries and CCA boundaries are not universally coterminous, they are generally very close, with approximately 10-20 tracts comprising a single CCA [Figures 3.2-3.3]. For purposes of discussion and for locating concentrations of historic preservation and gentrification activity within the larger context of Chicago, tracts were aggregated into CCAs—a nearly seamless process given their generally shared boundaries. 65 Figure 3.2: Map showing CCAs with the example of the Lincoln Park CCA highlighted. 66 Figure 3.3: Detail map showing CCAs with the Lincoln Park CCA highlighted and year 2000 census tracts overlaid. Standardization of Tract Polygons As mentioned above, census tract geography can change with each decennial count to capture shifts in population or changes in the physical landscape of the area being described. The census tracts in Chicago show minimal change over the research period of 1970-2000. Nevertheless, standardization was required to ensure comparability between decades that would support valid quantitative testing of comparable data. Despite the common use of time-series data in social science research projects, the problem of standardizing mutable boundary data without a loss of 67 information remains one that defies a single, definitive solution. Relatively little guidance regarding this is available in the existing literature (Gregory and Ell 2005; Syphard, Stewart, Mckeefry, Hammer, Fried, Holcomb and Radeloff 2009). Solutions such as Gregory and Ell’s require aggregation of the data into a single known unit, one that will likely not change over the time period in question. This type of solution raises the issue of ecological fallacy and the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) (Openshaw and Taylor 1972; Openshaw 1984; Krupka 2007; Eckerd 2011). One method of achieving comparability is through the use of population- and street-side mileage-based relationship files available from the United States Census Bureau. These files provide information on tracts that have experienced a 2.5% or greater change (gain or loss) in population since the previous census was taken [Table 3.6]. Census years 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Standardization Source Census Bureau “comparability file” Census Bureau “comparability file” Census Bureau “relationship file” http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07913.v1 http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09810.v1 http://www.census.gov/geo/www/relate/rel_tract.html Table 3.6: Inter-decade comparability files. This dissertation uses the population-based relationship files provided by the Census Bureau. Two examples of this type of file are provided in the tables and figures below. Use of these files require the parsing of continuous data [Tables 3.7, 3.9] into discrete data units [Tables 3.8, 3.10] that reflect changes in the size and shape of the census tract geometry [Figures 3.4-3.5, 3.7-3.8]. Aerial imagery can be used to help discern the rationale for changes in the census tracts—for example, when a neighborhood’s buildings are demolished or when industry encroaches on residential neighborhoods and changes the predominant land use or population [Figures 3.6, 3.9). 68 Tract 2836 3101 3101 17031283600 17031310100P 17031310100P 153100017031283600P 319006617031283600P 319093417031310000 1740879 1740121 2981000 153 21 298 809ILCook 92ILCook 379ILCook Table 3.7: Population-based relationship files for three census tracts, as provided by Census Bureau. FIPS code 1990 tract (P suffix indicates “part”) 17031 17031 17031 283600 310100P 310100P 2000 pop. in 1990 tract 153 319 319 % 1990 pop. in tract 100.0 6.6 93.4 2000 tract (P suffix indicates “part”) 17031283600P 17031283600P 17031310000 2000 pop. in 2000 tract 174 174 298 % 2000 pop. in tract 87.9 12.1 100.0 2000 pop. in part Area (1,000 2 meters ) State/ county 153 21 298 809 92 379 ILCook ILCook ILCook Table 3.8: Parsed data from the relationship file in Table3.7. Figure 3.4: 1990 census tracts 2836 (blue, at top) and 3101 (green, at bottom). 69 Figure 3.5: 2000 census tracts 2836 (blue, at top) and 3101 (green, at bottom). Figure 3.6: Aerial photo showing area assigned to tract 2836 in 2000 from tract 3101 in 1990. Source: Google Maps. To normalize 1990 data to 2000 boundaries in the example above, 100 percent of tract 2836 population (1990 figures) had 6.6 percent of the tract 3101 (1999) added to it. To normalize the second tract involved, tract 3101, 93.4 percent of the population was calculated to account for the reduction in size and population. 70 Tract 2218 2219 2219 17031221800 17031221900P 17031221900P 1180100017031221800P 562000017031221800P 562100017031221000 11801000 11800000 5621000 1180 0 562 557ILCook 33ILCook 250ILCook Table 3.9: Population-based relationship files as provided by Census Bureau. FIPS code 17031 17031 17031 1990 tract (P suffix indicates “part”) 221800 221900P 221900P 2000 pop. in 1990 tract 1,180 562 562 % 1990 pop. in tract 100.0 000.0 100.0 2000 tract (P suffix indicates “part”) 17031221800P 17031221800P 17031221000 2000 pop. in 2000 tract 1,180 1,180 562 % 2000 pop. in tract 100.0 000.0 100.0 2000 pop. in part Area (1,000 meters2) State/ county 1180 0 562 557 33 250 ILCook ILCook ILCook Table 3.10: Parsed data from the relationship file in Table 3.9. Figure 3.7: 1990 census tracts 2218 (blue, at top) and 2219 (green, at bottom). 71 Figure 3.8: 2000 census tracts 2218 (blue, at top) and 2219 (green, at bottom). Figure 3.9: Aerial photo showing area that changed from tract 2219 in 1990 to tract 2218 in 2000. Source: Google Maps. In this second example, the reshuffling of industrial land near the Chicago River affected tract shape and area but not population. Adjacent census tracts 2218 and 2219 were reapportioned so that 2218 expanded by 33,000 square meters but gained no additional population. Tract 2219 shrunk commensurately. Since population did not change between decades, no normalization of the population was required. 72 Omitted Census Tracts Thirty-two census tracts are excluded from the year-2000 standardized data, leaving 847 available for study [Table 3.11, Figures 3.10-3.11]. The rationale for the exclusion of these tracts is described in the table below. A list of the 847 included tracts is also included [Appendix A]. Tract# 2314 2820 2821 2834 2901 2927 3115 3203 3505 4405 5104 5612 5613 5810 6402 6504 7608 7609 7705 7706 7707 7708 7709 8105.01 8105.02 8104 8106 8116 8215 8233.04 Description of area with nominal population or missing data Industrial Commercial/parking/highway University of Illinois-Chicago University of Illinois-Chicago Industrial/vacant Commercial/parking Riverside/industrial Loop Illinois Institute of Technology Commercial/RR/vacant Lake Calumet/vacant Midway Airport Midway Airport Industrial Midway Airport West Lawn Schiller Woods park O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburb O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburb O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburb O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburb O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburb Norridge/Harwood Park suburbs Norridge/Harwood Park suburbs Norridge/Harwood Park suburbs Unnamed independent township Norridge/Harwood Park suburbs O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburbs Industrial/vacant Mount Greenwood Cemetery 8400 8408.01 O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburbs O’Hare Airport/adjacent suburbs Notes I-90/I-94/I-290 Circle Interchange 2000 population and other data missing 1970 housing data missing Suburban “island” outside city limits Suburban “island” outside city limits Suburban “island” outside city limits Suburban tract mostly outside of city limits Suburban “island” outside city limits Suburban tract mostly outside of city limits; see detail map [Figure 3.11] Table 3.11: List of omitted census tracts. 73 Figure 3.10: Omitted census tracts. 74 Figure 3.11: Detail of omitted census tract 8233.04 (red hatched polygon), which falls largely outside of Chicago’s municipal boundaries (yellow polygon). 3.7 Upgrading in Post-Industrial Chicago, 1970-2000: An Overview The period of 1970-2000 was a one of continued white flight, racial turnover, and urban disinvestment in many of Chicago’s neighborhoods. It was also a period of entrenched suburban growth during which housing was erected en masse outside of the city limits, with commercial uses, light manufacturing, and office space following on its heels (Jackson 1987; Keating 1988; Bruegmann 1993; Keating 2005; Hudson 2006). Growth in the suburbs and white flight from the city was on such a scale that between 1960 and 1970, the population of Chicago’s suburbs surpassed that of the city itself [Table 3.12]. By 2000, metropolitan Chicago spread over 4,400 square miles and encompassed 293 municipalities in the multi-state region (Hudson 2006). It was in this context of centrifugal development and inner city disinvestment and depopulation that gentrification stood out as a reversal of overwhelmingly dominant trends. 75 Census Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Chicago SMA 5,495,364 6,794,461 7,612,314 7,869,542 8,065,633 9,157,540 Chicago (city) 3,620,962 3,550,404 3,366,957 3,005,072 2,783,726 2,896,016 City as % of SMA 66% 52% 44% 38% 35% 32% Table 3.12: Historical population, Chicago SMA and city. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. The maps of Chicago that follow [Figures 3.12-3.23] were calculated to show either absolute change or ‘change in the percentage of’ variables for the period 19702000. They reveal the broader trends in social and physical upgrading that are typically associated with gentrification. This upgrading is localized and particularly strong on Chicago’s north side. Here, growth is evident in the college-educated, professional population. Growth is also reflected in the increase in incomes and rent and in the concomitant decline in the numbers of poor families and welfare recipients. The maps also reveal clear racial trends: a broad decline in the white population, the movement of blacks to neighborhoods outside the tradition black belts, and the overarching growth in the Hispanic population. 76 Figure 3.12: Absolute change in total population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 77 Figure 3.13: Change in the percent of the white population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 78 Figure 3.14: Change in the percent of the black population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 79 Figure 3.15: Change in the percent of the Hispanic population, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 80 Figure 3.16: Change in the percent of college graduates, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 81 Figure 3.17: Change in the percent of professionals, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 82 Figure 3.18: Change in the percent of residents employed in manufacturing, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 83 Figure 3.19: Change in the percent of families living in poverty, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 84 Figure 3.20: Change in the percent of households receiving public assistance income (PAI), tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 85 Figure 3.21: Absolute change in per capita income in real dollars, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 86 Figure 3.22: Absolute change in family income in real dollars, tract-level data, 1970-2000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 87 Figure 3.23: Absolute change in median gross rent in real dollars, tract-level data, 19702000. Natural breaks (Jenks) classification. 88 3.8 Quantitative Analysis: Overview The quantitative portion of this research proceeds in four steps. First, a PCA was conducted on the census variables described above. The selection of a large number of variables allows for numerous dimensions of gentrification to be identified, with primary interest focused on those involving in the process of social upgrading. This was critical given that a central objective in this research is the identification of diverse forms of gentrification across the neighborhoods of Chicago. In the second step, a nonhierarchical K-Means cluster analysis was used to group the PCA output into subgroups of similar observations that were subsequently mapped using GIS. Third, tracts in the target cluster from the K-Means analysis were ground-truthed to verify that upgrading was, in fact, being correctly identified through the PCA and K-Means analyses. Finally, historic preservation data were overlaid on the target cluster data to reveal the colocation of gentrified areas and areas with high levels of preservation activity. This final step is discussed in the subsequent historic preservation chapter as well as in the case studies. The end result of this quantitative research component is the identification of three census tracts—referred to in this dissertation as neighborhoods— that would serve as the case studies for the qualitative portion of this research. Each of these neighborhood case studies is given its own chapter to allow for a close analysis and more nuanced interpretation of their localized forms of gentrification and historic preservation. The quantitative component of this research began with two exploratory methods, PCA and K-Means clustering. Together these provide direction for the qualitative analysis that followed and that forms the central analytical piece of this research. The PCA technique was performed on variables from the 1970 and 2000 decennial censuses and provided a means to understand the broad changes in 89 population and housing in Chicago’s census tracts over the thirty-year period. Change variables derived from baseline variables were used. Again, this allowed for a “sliding scale” solution that captured neighborhoods experiencing similar levels of upgrading, regardless of whether they were low- , medium-, or high-income. This method was used recently by Podagrosi, Vojnovic, and Pigozzi in the context of Houston, Texas (Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011) and was generally informed by the methodology of O’Loughlin and Munski and their work on historic neighborhoods in New Orleans (O'Loughlin and Munski 1979). Adopting this approach was important since it helps debunk the assumption that gentrification is still a singular process whereby the rich displace the poor, a gross oversimplification that has been shown to be inadequate in studies of super-gentrification (Lees 2003; Butler and Lees 2006; Hedin, Clark, Lundholm and Malmberg 2012) yet persists in the research today. For example, Ryberg-Webster erroneously argues that historic preservation financial incentives are not enmeshed in the process of gentrification since “low-income” residents are not displaced in neighborhoods where they are used—the displaced poor being “a fundamental condition of gentrification” (Ryberg-Webster 2013, p. 276). The PCA is a widely used data reduction method that identifies groups of data— here, groups of tract-level census variables—with similar internal characteristics in an otherwise “messy,” high-dimensional data set (Rogerson 2004; Demšar, Harris, Brunsdon, Fotheringham and McLoone 2013). As Jolliffe notes in the opening of his textbook dedicated to PCA, The central idea of principal component analysis (PCA) is to reduce the dimensionality of a data set consisting of a large number of interrelated variables, while retaining as much as possible of the variation present in the data set. This is achieved by transforming to a new set of variables, the principal components (PCs), which are uncorrelated, and which are 90 ordered so that the first few retain most of the variation present in all of the original variables (Jolliffe 2002, p. 1). Such an analytic technique allows for researchers to identify underlying order, structure, and coherence in a complex data set like that involving census data that describe the population and housing characteristics of a large city like Chicago. For this research, PCA will reveal the diverse dimensions of upgrading in Chicago’s neighborhoods and help make sense of the population, socioeconomic, and housing changes in the 847 census tracts examined. PCA will provide a means to explore and identify areas that have experienced diverse forms of upgrading that are typical of gentrification and will narrow the search for suitable case studies for the qualitative portion of the research that will follow. This latter portion of the research provides a confirmatory element since gentrification is not discernable through the analysis of quantitative data on their own. Systat 13, a statistics software package, was used to execute the PCA. This analysis was performed on thirty-one standardized change variables derived from baseline variables from the 1970 and 2000 censuses that are described in the tables above. The variables selected were those that logically fit within the framework of gentrification; that is, variables that would be likely to reveal change that reflects the sort of physical and social upgrading associated with gentrification (Hammel and Wyly 1996). Output data from the PCA were transferred to a spreadsheet and subsequently visualized and analyzed using GIS software. Historic preservation data were also included in the multiple early PCA runs. These runs produced results that offered little in the way of interpretative value beyond that of the PCA runs using census variables alone and were thus excluded from the final PCA run. 91 A K-Means cluster analysis was then undertaken to group the results of the PCA—the principal components—into distinct clusters of census tracts experiencing similar types and scales of social and physical upgrading. The K-Means method uses a partitional algorithm that “starts with a random initial partition and keeps reassigning the patterns to clusters based on the similarity between the pattern and the cluster centers until a convergence criterion is met” (Jain, Murty and Flynn 1999, p. 278). Systat 13 was also used to execute this analysis and GIS was also used to map the results. An examination of these clusters (the number determined through an Incremental-F test) helped identify where gentrification has occurred in Chicago. Again, the methodology of Podagrosi, Vojnovic, and Pigozzi (2011) was followed here. On-site evaluation was then carried out to verify that the neighborhoods identified in the quantitative analysis had, in fact, experienced physical upgrading through capital reinvestment, a second critical indicator of gentrification alongside social upgrading (Clay 1979). This ground-truthing exercise was necessary because gentrification is a messy concept that cannot be revealed definitively through quantitative analyses alone. Evidence for physical upgrading included signs of capital reinvestment in existing buildings (rehabilitation or refurbishment) or in new-build construction, and the presence of new upscale commercial outlets. In the next chapter, GIS will be used to integrate historic preservation data layers with the cluster maps to reveal where in the city preservation activity and gentrification have coincided. Preservation data were aggregated into census tracts, and census tracts into the 77 officially recognized Chicago Community Areas (CCAs). This allowed for a ranking of both tracts and CCAs based on the level of preservation activity present within their boundaries. CCAs are important because discussions of Chicago and its 92 neighborhoods in newspapers and other media naturally evoke the neighborhoods by name, not by abstractions like census tracts7. Based on the quantitative analysis, ground-truthing, and coincidence of historic preservation activity and gentrification, three case study neighborhoods will be identified for a more detailed qualitative analysis exploring the diversity of gentrification. The qualitative analysis will examine the local reinvestment and redevelopment processes, the agents involved, and the nature of displacement associated with gentrification in each of the neighborhoods. Extensive site visits were undertaken and various archival and historical materials used to understand and portray the nature of changes within each neighborhood over the 1970-2000 period. 3.9 PCA Results The PCA was executed using the software Systat 13; outputs from the final PCA run are included in the appendices [Appendix B]. Several commonly applied rules of thumb were followed to identify the correct number of components to extract. For the initial, unrotated PCA solution, the extraction parameters were set with a minimum eigenvalue of zero and the number of components equal to the number of variables included in the run. A random vector (generated in Excel) was also included. A correlation matrix for extraction was selected in the Systat software settings and loadings were sorted in the output display. The unrotated PCA produced a solution with nine components with eigenvalues over one, six of which had ‘percent of total variance explained’ values over five percent. 7 The City of Chicago recognizes 77 Chicago Community Areas (CCAs). Straddling these are unofficial “neighborhoods” that are commonly used by locals. For the purposes of this research CCAs are used to describe areas of the city since these coincide with census tract boundaries and facilitate the discussion of these areas. CCAs provide a universal spatial unit used by research organizations like the Woodstock Institute in its annual Community Lending Fact Book series to portray housing and lending practices in Chicago. 93 The random variable appeared with a high loading in component ten. A scree test was also undertaken but an evaluation of the plot revealed no clear breaks between eigenvalues with large and small values and no obvious leveling-off “elbows” within the plot. Several rotated PCA runs using the orthogonal varimax setting were then executed (minus the random variable) to ensure uncorrelated components. These were largely corroborative of one another. That is to say, similar variables grouped in similar components when different numbers of components were extracted. The final extraction parameters were set in Systat with a minimum eigenvalue of one and the ‘number of factors’ left unidentified. Nine components were extracted. Seven of the nine components had at least three variable loadings and two had two. All nine components appeared to have potential relevance to the research and the goal of exploring the diverse forms of gentrification, so all were retained. Together, these accounted for 77.2% of the total variance. These components, or dimensions, are interpreted below and their factor scores are mapped in the appendices [Appendix C]. Dimension one explains 14.2% of the total variance. This dimension can be characterized as one of family growth and household diversification associated with increased educational attainment and professionalization. An increase in the number of families is revealed here, as is growth in the number of female-headed households. Growth in family income is also apparent and reflects an increasingly college-educated and professional workforce. Increases in professionals, college graduates, and femaleheaded households, and changes in family structure might suggest the presence gentrification. Dimension two explains 10.3% of the total variance. Of the PCA dimensions generated in this research, this one best reveals the type of socioeconomic change 94 associated with gentrification. This dimension reveals areas where employed persons make up an increasingly large share of the local population; members of this employed group are college-educated and professional, and have growing per capita incomes. While shares of the educated and professional population increase, the share of residents on public assistance income decreases. Dimension three explains 7.5% of the total variance. This dimension is strongly associated with an increase in demand for housing units. As the number of households grows, the number of vacant housing units decrease. Dimension four explains 10.8% of the total variance. This dimension shows growth in the overall population and in the segment over twenty-five, specifically. Employment is on the rise and the number of rental units—and the rent they can command—is also increasing. This might suggest the presence of a younger, more mobile gentrifying class at a life stage where renting is necessary—or deemed preferable—to homeownership. Dimension five explains 7.2% of the total variance. This dimension captures the stark reality of race relations and segregation in Chicago. White areas are becoming increasing white, while black areas are becoming increasingly black. Dimension six explains 5.47% of the total variance. Growth in stable areas with established, long-term populations and increased owner-occupancy are described in this dimension. Dimension seven explains 6.9% of the total variance. The growth and spread of Chicago’s Hispanic population beyond its historic “home” neighborhoods are shown here. Also revealed is a general decline in the share of residents employed in manufacturing and an increase in the share of female-headed households. Dimension eight explains 8.7% of the total variance and reveals growth in households and housing units. The increase in vacant units might reflect overbuilding to meet the demand for housing in the areas described in this dimension. Finally, dimension nine explains 6% of 95 the total variance. This dimension reveals areas with moderately increasing shares of white, owner-occupied housing and decreasing renter-occupied housing. An increase in the local white population and in homeownership would suggest a traditional form of gentrification at work. 3.10 K-Means Clustering Results Systat 13 was also used for the K-Means cluster analysis. As mentioned above, the purpose of the K-means algorithm is to classify data. It partitions data points into subsets, or clusters, which minimize within-group variation and maximize between-group variation. This has been described as a process whereby clusters are created so as to maximize internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity (Cormack 1971). For the purposes of this research, cluster analysis simplifies a large and complex dataset and provides a more readily interpretable view of the upgrading activities in Chicago’s neighborhoods. Using the factor scores for the nine PCA components described above, an analysis was undertaken to cluster the observations (census tracts) into similar groups based on the census variables. The Euclidean distance metric was selected in the Systat 13 software settings. In K-Means clustering, there is no unwavering method of determining the “correct” number of clusters with which to seed the algorithm. This research followed a commonly recommended solution (Steinley 2006) and ran multiple, iterative K-Means analyses using as small a number of seed groups as two and as many as eighteen. Subsequently, this provided data for an Incremental-F test to help determine a statistically significant number of groups to extract [Appendix D]. Through the incremental-F test, eleven distinct clusters of census tracts were determined to be appropriate for study. Cluster eleven, the cluster that includes all of 96 the Lincoln Park CCA and its twenty census tracts, was selected as the target cluster for this research. This 163-tract cluster best suggests the presence of social and physical upgrading associated with gentrification. Lincoln Park, located on Chicago’s north side, is used as the identifying neighborhood for gentrification since it is uniformly held to be the city’s first and best articulated gentrified neighborhood. Lees, Slater, and Wyly note how “[i]n Chicago, gentrification did not begin in the heavily disinvested South Side; rather, it began first in a small pocket of poverty and disinvestment in the Near North Side, then expanded with heavy public subsidy…” (Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008, p. 58). Lincoln Park also exhibits many variants of gentrification that speak to its diversity: newbuild gentrification and super-gentrification, for example. Lincoln Park is also the site of more historic preservation activity than any other CCA in the city. Cluster eleven includes 163 tracts or approximately 20% of the 847 total across Chicago [Figure 3.24]. These tracts are primarily located on Chicago’s north side, with islands of tracts centered on near south side, in Kenwood-Hyde Park, and in Beverly on the city’s extreme southwest side. Cluster eleven best captures the process of social and physical upgrading associated with gentrification. Indeed, the two dimensions with strongest representation in the cluster include seven variables commonly associated with social and physical upgrading and gentrification. For variables like change in per capita income, any number of unique upgrading processes are also possible. These, however, are discernable not in the PCA results but in subsequent qualitative analyses of the cluster 11 case study neighborhoods. Upgrading is also evident when comparing the changes in cluster eleven to those occurring at the citywide scale [Tables 3.133.15]. 97 Figure 3.24: PCA cluster 11 (with case studies highlighted). 98 CHANGE VARIABLES, 1970-2000: POPULATION Variable Description Cluster 11 % Change - total population -16.04% % Change - white -31.18% Change % - white -15.72% % Change - black 17.36% Change % - black 3.53% % Change - Hispanic -11.72% Change % - Hispanic 0.73% % Change - ≥25 years age 3.00% Change % - ≥25 years age 13.92% Chicago -14.43% -45.45% -23.76% -3.50% 4.17% 202.97% 18.68% -5.14% 6.11% Table 3.13: Comparison of Cluster 11 and Chicago population change variables, 19702000. CHANGE VARIABLES, 1970-2000: SOCIOECONOMIC Variable Description Cluster 11 % Change - per capita 133.88% income % Change - median family 72.05%% income % Change - median gross 53.99% rent % Change - families below -62.39% poverty level Change % - families below -6.68% poverty level % Change - families on PAI -24.10% Change % - families on PAI -1.04% % Change - female-headed 32.73% households Change % - female-headed 7.41% households % Change - college 308.35% graduates Change % - college 44.36% graduates % Change - employed 14.52% residents Change % - employed 16.74% residents % Change - professionals 154.43% Change % - professionals 31.17% % Change - manufacturers -68.06% Change % - manufacturers -6.20% Chicago 34.51% 2.92% 13.08% -17.73% 1.25% 46.92% 2.54% 27.93% 10.91% 199.96% 17.42% -12.59% 0.87% 63.82% 15.57% -60.19 -0.84% Table 3.14: Comparison of Cluster 11 and Chicago socioeconomic change variables, 19702000. 99 CHANGE VARIABLES, 1970-2000: HOUSING Variable Description Cluster 11 % Change - families -34.47% % Change - households 8.12% % Change - housing units 4.44% % Change - vacant units -30.82% Change % - vacant units -3.11% % Change - owner-occupied 50.56% units Change % - owner-occupied 19.82% units % Change - renter-occupied -17.51% units Change % - renter-occupied -19.82% units %Change - median value 203.72% units Chicago -23.90% -7.23% -5.19% 28.42% 2.06% 16.32% 8.85% -19.84% -8.85% 91.26% Table 3.15: Comparison of Cluster 11 and Chicago housing change variables, 1970-2000. What these tables make clear is that upgrading of the type traditionally associated with gentrification has occurred in cluster 11 over the last three decades of the twentieth century. Compared with Chicago as a whole, the census tracts that make up the cluster show dramatic increases in the variables related to population, socioeconomic, and housing change. Per capita income (133.88%) and family income (72.05%) are both well above the citywide averages (34.51% and 2.92%). Similarly, gross rent for housing units (53.99%) and the value of housing (203.72%) are also well above averages for Chicago (13.08% and 91.26%). Greater increases in collegeeducated (308.35%) and professional population (154.43%) are likely responsible for these increases in income. As would be expected, these increases are reflected in changes at the opposite end of the spectrum. The rate of change in the number of residents living at our below the poverty level (-62.39%) or receiving public assistance income (-24.10%) shows greater changes in the cluster than in the city as a whole (17.73% and 46.92%). Homeownership has also increased at a greater rate in the cluster (50.56%) while the number of rental units has decreased (-17.51%). 100 Perhaps most striking about these results is the growth in the black population in cluster 11. While Chicago’s black population shows signs of a slight overall loss, the cluster reveals a pronounced increase of 17.36%. This seems to support recent scholarship that returns the discussion of gentrification to its roots in class change and argues that the process has diversified beyond its historically white orientation, making the possibility of non-white gentrifiers a very real one (Lees 2000; Pattillo 2005; Freeman 2006; Pattillo 2007). 3.11 Qualitative Analysis and Case Study Neighborhoods The PCA and K-Means clustering of the tract-level census data were used to identify neighborhoods in Chicago that have experienced similar levels of upgrading associated with gentrification. Historic preservation data will be overlaid on these data using GIS. Three neighborhoods with significant levels of preservation activity will also be selected as case studies for a more detailed qualitative analysis. These neighborhoods will be selected to represent a diversity of gentrification processes and preservation activities over the period 1970-2000. They present differences in the physical characteristics of the neighborhoods, their residents, and in the intensity and type of historic preservation activity present. The case study approach used here has been used elsewhere to examine diverse types of gentrified neighborhoods for purposes of comparison (Hackworth 2007; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). The confirmatory value of qualitative on-site investigation and photodocumentation of gentrifying neighborhoods is perhaps best expressed by Charles Suchar, who developed the technique in the 1970s in his studies of gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago (Suchar 1997; Suchar 2004; Suchar 2006). In support of his technique, Suchar writes: 101 The photographic inventory that provides a visual survey and documentation of the structures, landscape and topography of a region is a method used by a variety of disciplines and professions including geographers, cartographers, city planners and the like. This particular project has confirmed, for me at least, the significant potential that resides in a visual/photographic survey of the cityscape to reveal social, political, economic and cultural patterns and characteristics that mark changing cities. The patterns thus revealed can be linked to structural realities and macro-processes that help establish a more textured understanding of urban social transformation (Suchar 2004, p. 162). The approach used in this research draws from Suchar’s work but diverges in that gentrified neighborhoods first were identified quantitatively and subsequently explored qualitatively, using historic preservation data, archival and secondary research materials, and information gathered during neighborhood site visits. Existing studies have typically inverted this process by first identifying gentrification qualitatively—that is, visually—before confirming its presence via some quantitative means (e.g. Wyly and Hammel 1998). Qualitative evidence for gentrification can be discerned in a variety ways. The visible presence of maintained and upgraded building stock is chief among these. Artistic outdoor embellishments are also suggestive of middle-class upgrading (Suchar 1997), although those depicted in early examinations of Lincoln Park’s aesthetics of gentrification (Angle, Mulhaney and Forkert 1963; Reed 1979) seem inconspicuous compared to some of those of more recent vintage. As mentioned earlier, the quantitative data from the decennial censuses reveal little about the capital reinvestment that can visually transform upgrading neighborhoods. Gentrified neighborhoods are often home to upscale commercial ventures, restaurants, and boutiques that cater to middle-class residents. Previous research has used the presence of gourmet coffee shops as a proxy for gentrification (Papachristos, Smith, Scherer and Fugiero 2011)—gourmet coffee being a nonessential consumer good purchased by those who can afford it. 102 Visible signs of historic preservation activity in the case study neighborhoods were also investigated during the on-site visits. Most public preservation programs follow rigid bureaucratic processes and leave paper trails that provide a rich source for research. However, first-hand evaluation proved critical since preservation projects operating under certain programs—the Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, for example—are longitudinal in scope and their outcomes often uncertain. Projects can falter or die before completion, even though they may appear as active in the written records of the program. In such cases, paperwork alone cannot always determine whether a process has proceeded through completion. Thus, ground-truthing visits to known nodes of preservation activity played a valuable role in verifying the historic preservation activity indicated in the administrative program records, as well as related physical upgrading associated with gentrification [Figures 3.25-3.28]. In practice, this involved the visible identification of rehabilitation work on buildings that conforms to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and the presence of neighborhood signage and commemorative historical plaques. Historic images supplemented this information by providing a window onto how buildings and neighborhoods appeared before their redevelopment. 103 Figure 3.25: 831 South Claremont Avenue, a rehabilitated house in the Tri-Taylor neighborhood. Source: author. 104 Figure 3.26: New and rehabilitated old construction in the Bucktown neighborhood (Logan Square CCA): 2020 (left, built 2009) and 2016 West Charleston Avenue (right, built 1892). Source: author. 105 Figure 3.27: Rehabilitated rowhouses on 5600 block of South Blackstone Avenue, Hyde Park neighborhood. Source: author. 106 Figure 3.28: Streetscape, Beverly neighborhood. Source: Paul Krutulis. Archival and secondary materials were obtained from a variety of sources. Information about the histories of Chicago’s neighborhoods, particularly those on the city’s north side, was obtained from the DePaul University Archives. This collection contains the institutional records of many of the north side’s neighborhood organizations: the Lincoln Park Conservation Association, the Lincoln Park Community Conservation Council, various local chambers of commerce, and several smaller neighborhood nonprofits located within the Lincoln Park CCA and those CCAs surrounding. The Edgewater Historical Society was an especially rich resource for planning and neighborhood activities within the Edgewater CCA over the period from the late-1980s through the present. Secondary materials were primarily drawn from Chicago’s two mainstream newspapers, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. The latter newspaper was 107 particularly useful given its local focus and the attention given to neighborhoods other than the Loop. Small-circulation newspapers like the African-American Chicago Defender, Chicago Metro News, and Chicago Weekend provided useful materials and a different, often more militant, perspective on gentrification, preservation, and other transformational processes occurring in Chicago during the 1970-2000 period. Publications like the Woodstock Institute’s semi-annual Chicago Lending Fact Book and the Sun-Times’ occasional The Chicago House Hunt Book provided valuable insights into Chicago’s changing real estate markets during this period. These latter two resources helped offset the dearth of real estate information that is perhaps the single largest shortcoming in the decennial census data. 3.12 Conclusion and Next Steps The research undertaken in this dissertation attempts to expand our understanding of gentrification and historic preservation and provide answers to two principal questions. First, can a substantive link between historic preservation and gentrification be identified? The literature on these two topics only casually mentions a relationship, but mentions it often (see Datel and Dingemans 1980; Zukin 1982; Jager 1986; Smith 1998; Bures 2001; Clark 2005; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007). A thorough investigation is therefore merited. Building on the idea that gentrification is more diverse and complex than once conceptualized (Rose 1984; Beauregard 1986; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011), the second question asks if different preservation programs, tools, and intensities of use be shown to relate to different forms of gentrification within Chicago’s neighborhoods. Neither of these questions has been adequately addressed in the existing research. To explore these topics two primary data sets were amassed and analyzed. A large census data set was used to reveal population, socioeconomic, and housing 108 changes within Chicago over the period 1970-2000 and to identify the process of gentrification and displacement at work in the city’s neighborhoods. The data reduction method PCA was used to explore these data by grouping variables into interpretable dimensions. PCA component scores were then clustered using K-means clustering to reveal census tracts experiencing similar levels of gentrification. The cluster that included the baseline neighborhood of Lincoln Park, as well as characteristics of upgrading that are commonly associated with gentrification, was selected as the target cluster. Ultimately, the purpose of the quantitative analysis was to illustrate likely sites of gentrification and to provide direction. This allow for the identification of potential case study neighborhoods for subsequent qualitative analysis. The second data set that will be used in this research is comprised of historic preservation data describing multiple governmental preservation programs. These data reveal concentrations of historic preservation activity in the city over the 1970-2000 period. This data set is described in detail in the following chapter, which discusses the spectrum of governmental historic preservation programs and activities and attempts to portray their significance as redevelopment tools to a postindustrial city like Chicago. 109 Chapter 4: Historic Preservation 4.1 Introduction This chapter has two primary objectives. First, it introduces the topic of historic preservation and examines preservation activity in the context of Chicago over the period 1970-2000. Characterizing preservation activity in a large city relies heavily on spatially-referenced data, which are also discussed in detail here. The chapter then describes the process by which preservation activity was analyzed for this dissertation and how this helped inform the selection of three neighborhoods for the subsequent qualitative case study chapters. The chapter begins by providing an overview of historic preservation with a focus on the context of the city of Chicago. Preservation has long been an urban-oriented phenomenon in the United States. The seminal 1966 report to Congress, With Heritage So Rich, which advocated for the appropriateness of preservation as a government activity, was the work of the United States Conference of Mayors, an organization chartered during the Great Depression to address the challenges then facing major cities (United States Conference of Mayors-Special Committee on Historic Preservation 1966). Mayors and city councils in many older American cities in the 1960s viewed historic preservation as a valuable end in itself. Increasingly, as the century wore on, it was also viewed as a useful tool for the promotion and revitalization of architecturally unique and historically rich neighborhoods. Historic preservation is a private endeavor no less than a public one, and involves individuals, firms, and non-profit organizations, as well as government bodies (Stipe and Lee 1987). Nevertheless, the specific focus in this research is government preservation programs operated at the Federal, state, and local levels and the publicprivate partnerships that they foster. Of primary importance is the work of the Federal 110 government, principally through the honorific National Register of Historic Places program, and the financial incentives offered to historic property owners by the Federal government and the State of Illinois. These programs are well-represented in the cluster of tracts identified in the quantitative portion of this research. The City of Chicago’s landmarks program is also relevant to this research but it impacts far fewer buildings in the PCA cluster and across the city in general. To clarify the nuances and complexities of historic preservation, this chapter begins by developing a typology of historic resources. The expression “historic resource” used in this research follows the definition of the National Park Service and is taken to mean any constructed work, typically immovable, that was created to serve human activity. More often than not this merely indicates a building, although man-made objects like sculpture, designed landscapes, archaeological sites, and structures like bridges are also considered historic resources. The expression also assumes that the resource in question has been officially designated as “historic” under the two governmental designation programs described above. The identification of historic resources is a practical way for governments to distinguish buildings with historic significance and character from the throngs of “background” buildings that currently have no such value. In the context of a large, builtup area like Chicago, historic buildings and districts are common. They represent the accumulation of a century-and-a-half of growth and development dating back as far as the antebellum Henry B. Clarke House, Chicago oldest extant residence [Figure 4.1]. A section of this chapter describes the changing conceptualization of historic preservation and how, over time, it has evolved from a pedagogical tool with limited impact to a common tool for urban revitalization. 111 The chapter concludes with an examination of the preservation data used to identify three neighborhoods—census tracts—from the PCA cluster that are suitable for the qualitative analysis of the relationship between preservation and gentrification. These three case studies will reveal how historic neighborhoods follow divergent paths in their social and physical upgrading. Figure 4.1: Henry B. Clarke House (built 1836), Chicago’s oldest house. Source: City of Chicago. 4.2 Historic Preservation and the Typology of Historic Resources Historic preservation is a broad and multi-faceted concept that defies a single, straightforward, and all-inclusive definition (Tyler, Ligibel and Tyler 2009). It is also a mutable concept that lacks an “issue monopoly” around which supporters have been able to consistently coalesce (Kurtz 2006). Foremost it is an ethic. That is, it is an individual or societal system of beliefs that holds that heritage—typically but not exclusively the historic built environment—is worthy of protection and care. To provide care requires active intervention. Murtagh defines historic preservation as the scalable intervention into the natural rate at which buildings are consumed: In a broad sense, preservation has been defined as a concern for the rate of consumption of buildings. The implosion of an existing building to make way for new construction represents instant consumption. The original building immediately ceases to exist. The antithesis of implosion 112 is represented by the historic house museum, where all measures possible are taken to depress the rate of wear and tear on the building (Murtagh 1997, p. 20). Preservation is thus an intentional disruption of a natural process of change in buildings and in built environments. The demolition of buildings or their “preservation in amber” represent two extremes, but most preservation activity occurs at some mid-point along this continuum. Most historic preservationists argue that historic buildings are important for the history they embody and for their historical associations (Stipe and Lee 1987; Fitch 1992; Lee 1992; Murtagh 1997; Stipe 2003). Buildings are regarded as windows onto the time and place of their creation. They lend a sense of permanence to the otherwise changing landscape and can educate the present generation by shedding light on the past (Hosmer 1981). The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended, codifies this normative sentiment in its preamble: The Congress finds and declares…that the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic past [and] that the historical and cultural foundations should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people (1966). It is unsurprising that historic preservation grew to prominence when it did, in the 1960s, since this was a time when urban America was experiencing unprecedented social and physical change. In this climate, buildings and other physical vestiges of the past were seen as a means to provide the “sense of orientation” for which Congress had called. This sentiment has since been echoed by most other preservation organizations. For example, the Congressionally-chartered non-profit, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, asserted that preservation “champions and protects places that tell the stories of our past,… enhances our sense of community and brings us closer together” (National Trust for Historic Preservation 2014). The battles waged over the preservation 113 of historic landmarks during the 1960s and 1970s were battles for continuity in the midst of urban change. Those fought in Chicago were acrimonious and often unsuccessful (Bluestone 1994). In addition to being an ethic, historic preservation is also a broad administrative process that involves the formal recognition of buildings as “historic.” This is done to commemorate buildings and the people and events associated with them, to interpret them, and to ensure their continued existence through protective legal instruments and financial incentives. Commemoration and interpretation are achieved through honorific programs like the National Register of Historic Places (hereafter referred to as the National Register). The protection of historic buildings occurs primarily at the local level through landmarks ordinances that are typically the product of enabling legislation from the state. Local landmarks ordinances are interventionist in the sense that they can apply the police power to prohibit the alteration or demolition of private property (Starr 1966). These ordinances vary from city to city and reflect a jurisdiction’s willingness to embrace historic preservation as a policy goal. A cornerstone of the practice of historic preservation is the identification of historic resources. Both the National Park Service and City of Chicago recognize the same general types of resources. In its rules for nominating historic resources to the National Register, the National Park Service identifies five possible types: buildings, archaeological sites, structures (for example, bridges), objects (outdoor sculpture), and historic districts. Similarly, the Chicago landmarks ordinance directs the Commission on Chicago Landmarks to identify “areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects within the City of Chicago which may be considered for designation by ordinance as ‘Chicago Landmarks’” (Commission on Chicago Landmarks 2014, p. 4). The two types of historic resources that are particularly relevant in the 114 context of a major urbanized area like Chicago are buildings and historic districts. According to the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form, a building is a resource like a house, barn, church, or store that “is created principally to shelter any form of human activity” (National Park Service 1997, p. 15). A historic district typically represents a unified group of buildings. It “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development” (ibid.). The constituent parts of a district, the individual buildings, are typically less historically or architecturally significant than its whole. Individual buildings rarely rise to a superlative level of significance on their own merit, but are important as parts of the tout ensemble they collectively create. An illustrative example of a historic building is architect H. H. Richardson’s Glessner House, located on Prairie Avenue on the city’s near south side [Figure 4.2]. Glessner House is considered one of Richardson’s greatest works of architecture and among the world’s most significant examples of the eponymous Richardsonian Romanesque style. It was individually listed in the National Register and designated a Chicago Landmark in 19708. 8 Glessner House has also achieved the highest level of historic recognition in the United States through its listing as a National Historic Landmark in 1976. 115 Figure 4.2: Glessner House (built 1886), 1800 South Prairie Avenue. Source: City of Chicago. Glessner House is also included in a National Register historic district (listed 1972) and Chicago Landmark historic district (listed 1979), both named Prairie Avenue District. This historic district encompasses the scant remnants of a once-upper crust neighborhood from Chicago’s Gilded Age (Sinkevitch 2004). The map below shows how an individual historic property like the Glessner House can be embedded in one or more districts [Figure 4.3]. 116 Figure 4.3: Map showing Glessner House (solid c-shaped polygon) within the National Register historic district (hollow black polygon) and larger Chicago Landmark district (hollow grey polygon). In identifying historic resources, two working concepts are central: significance and integrity. Significance speaks to the resource’s historical meaningfulness. The National Park Service lays out four “Criteria for Evaluation” as guidance for evaluating significance when listing properties in the National Register. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation describes these criteria as follows: 117 The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory (National Park Service 1997, p. 2). In layperson’s terms, a resource can be historically significant if it has a tangible connection to an important historical event (Criterion A) or a person (Criterion B); if it represents a distinctive style or type of architecture or the work of a master architect (Criterion C); or, finally, if it is an archaeological site with potential to yield important historical information (Criterion D). The City of Chicago’s landmarks ordinance identifies seven criteria for designating historic resources. These are very similar in spirit to those of the National Register. The second critical concept, integrity, describes the condition of a resource as it relates to the reason for its significance. For a resource to have integrity, it typically must retain physical characteristics that help convey its significance. This includes integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. For example, the Old Town Triangle Historic District and adjacent Sheffield Historic District, both in Chicago’s Lincoln Park CCA, were determined eligible for the National Register because they represent significant concentrations of intact workers’ housing that convey a sense of the modest, blue collar neighborhoods common in American cities during the late-19th and early-20th centuries. When these districts were originally listed, there were few non-historic intrusions into them—that is, few newly-constructed buildings or significantly altered ones. They had retained their integrity as districts. 118 Similarly, an individual historic building with integrity is one that retains the architectural features for which it is significant. 4.3 Historic Preservation: Programs and Incentives One of the primary goals of this research is to explore the relationship between governmental historic preservation programs and the process of gentrification. The role of government as a promoter of gentrification, either unintentionally or by design, is paramount. The existing literature on state-led gentrification is remarkably silent on the role of government in the gentrification process through its historic preservation programs. This is perplexing since historic buildings have consistently been identified by gentrification researchers as a critical component in the process (Zukin 1982; Jager 1986; London, Lee and Lipton 1986; Zukin 1987; Mills 1988; Lees 1994; Ley 1996; Smith 1998; Wilson 2006; Hamnett and Whitelegg 2007). As Featherstone notes, it was in the 1970s that “city governments begin to realize the potential for redevelopment and reversal of the negative side of deindustrialization and general enhancement of the city’s image by granting such [historic and artistic] enclaves a protected status” (Featherstone 1994, p. 402). Of course, historic preservation as an ethic and a practice exists outside of government and the professionalized private sphere of preservation consultants, architects, and developers. Informal preservation can be thought to occur whenever a property owner foregoes altering or demolishing a building and instead opts to save and possibly rehabilitate it. This owner may even follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) when rehabilitating their building—the Standards being those that property owners must comply with when seeking financial incentives like the Federal rehabilitation tax credit. However, informal historic 119 preservation is beyond the scope of this research since it lacks relevance to a study of preservation and state-led gentrification. A point of departure in this research is government’s top-down role in anointing certain neighborhoods as officially and formally “historic” and encouraging the promotion of historic neighborhoods, as well as capital reinvestment through financial incentives. Informal historic preservation—or “heritage from below,” as it has been described (Robertson 2012)—lacks this essential imprimatur. A secondary consideration, more pragmatic than theoretical, is that informal preservation lacks a manageable dataset for the purposes of research design. If any building can be informally “preserved,” then all buildings are potentially eligible for study. Delimiting boundaries for the study of informal preservation would be impractical. Historic preservation in the United States occurs at the national, state, and local levels of government. The Federal government sets national standards and funds programs at the state and local levels. The state—typically through a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)—operates Federal programs and engages in a variety of state-specific preservation activities. Preservation at the level of local government varies by municipality and reflects idiosyncrasies of the political, economic, and social climate therein. The state guides municipalities through enabling legislation and the Federal government shapes local preservation policy by incentivizing “best practices.” Stipe and Lee capture the nature of this hierarchy in their description of the Federal government as the “standard bearer,” the states as intermediary actors that practice “preservation in the middle,” and local governments as the contentious sites “where the action is” (Stipe and Lee 1987). 120 Federal Programs While the Federal government’s role in historic preservation dates back to the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a watershed event occurred in 1966 with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The express purpose of the NHPA was to expand and formalize government’s role in historic preservation and to establish a broad framework for its practice. The NHPA was also a way for the Federal government to address some of the inadequacies of its own programs and policies, primarily related to transportation and urban renewal, and to self-regulate its impacts on historic resources (Murtagh 1997). To this point, the independent Federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, noted that an underlying motivation in passage of the Act was to transform the Federal Government from an agent of indifference, frequently responsible for needless loss of historic resources, to a facilitator, an agent of thoughtful change, and a responsible steward for future generations (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2002). The NHPA was broad in its scope, but one component is particularly relevant to this research. It called for the creation of the National Register. Administered by the National Park Service, under the Secretary of the Interior, the National Register is simply an inventory of historic resources in the United States. It is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation… [and] is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources (National Park Service n.d., p. 1). Potential entries in the National Register are carefully evaluated for their historical significance and integrity, as described above. Extensive research is conducted and amassed in a National Register nomination form. This is formally submitted to the SHPO of the state in question, where it is evaluated, edited, and submitted for approval to a state review board of governor-appointed citizens. The board-approved nomination 121 is then submitted to the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., where the Keeper of the National Register ultimately lists the historic resource on the National Register. As of 2000, there were approximately 242 historic resources listed on the National Register in Chicago. This number jumps into the thousands when historic districts are disaggregated into their individual building components. The listing of resources spiked around the time the American Bicentennial in 1976 and again with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1978, which incentivized historic preservation by introducing tax credits to support rehabilitation work. A third spike in the mid-1980s may reflect the a flurry of interest in listing properties on the National Register before changes to the tax credit program went into effect with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This act rolled back the rehabilitation tax credit from 25% to 20% [Figure 4.4]. National Register Listings 25 20 15 10 5 0 Year Listed Figure 4.4: National Register listings by year. It is important to have a sense of the process of listing a property in the National Register and an understanding of what participants are involved. While anyone can initiate the process, in the case of a single building it is typically the owner of that building. This is especially true of residential buildings. Historic districts are different, 122 however. When listing a district in the National Register, a simple majority of property owners within the district must support the nomination9. Thus, a district nomination typically begins with an individual or group within the district who attempts to convince others of the merits of listing. If the honor of being listed on the National Register is not compelling enough an argument, then the financial benefits of listing are often invoked. Some of these benefits are specific to owner-occupied properties—the tax assessment freeze program, for example. Other benefits, like the rehabilitation tax credit program, do not require owneroccupancy and thus take on a more speculative nature. In these circumstances, developers are frequently involved in the promotion of the National Register program (Karamanski 2010). This is especially the case in a district with significant numbers of income-producing buildings like businesses, offices, or apartment complexes. City of Chicago Programs Federal historic preservation, as typified by a program like the National Register, is almost exclusively honorific in its intent10. In contrast, historic preservation at the local level—a process commonly referred to as “landmarking”—involves regulation and use of the police power to enforce the protection of privately-owned historic resources. It is for this reason that local preservation has earned the reputation as being the locus of meaningful preservation activity, where battles to save buildings are fought most passionately. It is the place where proponents of preservation clash with detractors over the legality, or at least ideological appropriateness, of historic preservation ordinances and what they attempt to achieve for a community. 9 If a simple majority is not achieved, then the district remains unlisted and instead may receive an official Determination of Eligibility from the National Park Service. This determination affords the district the same protections from Federal activity under Section 106 as guaranteed a listed district. However, no other benefits are accrued. 10 The regulatory framework established under Section 106 of the NHPA, which attempts to minimize Federal harm to historic buildings, is an exception. 123 The legality of local landmark ordinances is justified on the grounds that they promote the “health, safety, and welfare” of the local citizenry (Howard 1987, pp. 130131). This justification typically informs the protection of districts, since they impact a class of citizens (that is, all owners within the district) and not merely individuals. In this sense the effects of local landmarking approximates that of zoning. In contrast, justification for the listing of individual landmarks are often made using the aesthetics of the building as rationale—not the promotion of health, safety, and welfare. In 1957, the Chicago City Council established the Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks (now the Commission on Chicago Landmarks) as an advisory board. It had no power. Its mission was simply to compile a list of historically and architecturally significant buildings in the city. Eleven years later, in 1968, the City Council passed a landmarks ordinance that empowered the Commission with the ability to recommend landmarks for protection under the law. The Commission was also given the authority to approve proposed alterations and demolitions of landmarks and the right to refuse a building/demolition permit if the proposed changes would negatively impact the landmark. The ordinance was further revised in 1987, 1997, and 1999, but as it stood it 1968, it approximated most landmarks ordinances in American cities in terms of the Commission’s official powers. Between 1968 and 2000, the City of Chicago listed approximately 158 individual landmarks and 32 historic districts [Figure 4.5]. When these districts are disaggregated into individual buildings, this number is in the thousands. As with the National Register, clearly articulated spikes in the number of listings are observable. One such spike occurred in the early 1970s and probably reflects two concurrent forces: an initial push to landmark many of the city’s most significant buildings by architects like Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright, as well as a reactive effort to landmark buildings threatened by 124 development within the Loop. A second spike occurred around the time of the American Bicentennial. Troughs and additional spikes in the 1980s and 1990s are less easily tied to any significant event of the time. Chicago Landmarks and Districts 25 20 15 10 5 0 Year Listed Figure 4.5: City of Chicago listings by year. Landmarking buildings and districts at the local level is a process far more politicized than that of the National Register. Significant recent research by Zhang has articulated the extent to which local preservation in Chicago is shaped by what is described as “aldermanic prerogative” (Zhang 2008; Zhang 2011; Zhang 2013). Preservation effectively begins or ends at the ward level in Chicago. The support of a local alderman is a de facto requirement for a building or district to successfully negotiate the process from proposal upward, to the level of city hall, and ultimately to listing. Without an alderman’s support the city’s Historic Preservation Division will typically not initiate a study of a potential historic building or district for review by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks and City Council. Aldermen in Chicago are, in essence, the gatekeepers of a unique preservation process that one local journalist described as “preservation Chicago-style” (Joravsky 2003). 125 In addition to the inherently more politicized nature of local politics, historic preservation at the municipal level has been limited in the number of properties affected for economic reasons. Financial incentives used to promote preservation exist at both the Federal and state levels. Since “tax incentives are tax expenditures,” as noted by Kohtz (Kohtz 2011-2012, p. 1044), it is logical to assume that support for national programs that do not drain local revenues are promoted and used more assiduously than municipal or state ones. This, in combination with the aldermanic influences described above, likely helps to explain why local landmarking impacts far fewer properties in Chicago. During the 1970s, local governments exerted little influence in the listing of properties on the National Register. This changed in 1980 when the NHPA was first amended. In response to mayors who sought a greater voice in the process of listing National Register properties within their jurisdiction, the National Park Service and Congress amended the NHPA to allow mayors to veto local National Register listings, providing both the mayor and local landmarks commission were in agreement over their objection. This seemingly minor change would have dramatic consequences on occasion. As Howard notes, “This veto injects local politics into the process of nominating structures to the National Register”—the implication being that the process was relatively depoliticized before 1980 (Howard 1987, p. 138). This veto power applied only to municipalities that were active participants in the Certified Local Government program of the National Park Service. In part because of the assiduous application of “aldermanic prerogative” as described above, the use of this veto power has been limited in Chicago. Historic preservation evolved from a reactive, ad hoc tool used to prevent the demolition of individual landmarks into one that could also be used to actively stimulate 126 the economic revival of entire neighborhoods. In summarizing the contributions of governmental historic preservation activity to the revitalization of cities, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent Federal agency, highlighted preservation’s ability to stimulate private investment and foster business growth (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1979). Amendments to the NHPA in 1980 helped solidify this new direction. Reflecting the introduction of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the amended NHPA now stated that “the preservation of… irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans” [emphasis added] (1966). At the local level, the City of Chicago’s landmarks ordinance of 1968 reflected a similar shift from commemoration and interpretation to economic development. The ordinance reaffirms preservation as a public good but goes on to note that its goal is to “preserve the character and vitality of the neighborhoods and Central Area, to promote economic development through rehabilitation, and to conserve and improve the property tax base of Chicago” (Commission on Chicago Landmarks 2014). Financial Incentives Of the many impediments to historic preservation in the United States, one that was often mentioned during the 1970s was the lack of financial incentives to rehabilitate and reuse historic buildings. Reuse was actively discouraged because of the practice by which units of government tax real property. James Biddle, then-president of the nonprofit National Trust for Historic Preservation, opined that “the property tax is the most destructive tax to preservation. It can force people out of their homes. The next step is to jam all of it together and put as much on the land as you can” (Anonymous 1973). Municipal taxing systems often encouraged the intensification of land use through 127 consolidation of lots and maximizing of buildings within the allowable limits proscribed through zoning. This, of course, encouraged the demolition of buildings of smaller scale built in the late 19th century through World War II. Tax relief to incentivize historic preservation came in several forms and at different levels of government. Perhaps the best-known and most-utilized of these is the Federal tax credit that supports the rehabilitation of historic properties. The National Park Service estimates that this program has generated $69 billion in private reinvestment nationwide and preserved nearly 40,000 buildings since established in 1976 (National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2014). However, there are other programs offered by state and local government that were designed to achieve similar results. These are discussed in this section and convey the diversity of incentives programs that encourage the rehabilitation of historic buildings and stimulate reinvestment in historic neighborhoods. In describing the factors that drew new residents to urban neighborhoods in the 1980s, Nelson notes that the “[i]ncreasing attention to historic preservation and tax incentives for renovation of pre-1940 buildings also favored older cities” (Nelson 1988, p. 46). The National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service, in partnership with the State Historic Preservation Offices, jointly operate the 20% rehabilitation tax credit program that serves as the foundation of historic preservation financial incentives. A tax credit not an income tax deduction that lowers the amount of income subject to taxation. Rather, it reduces the amount of tax that the property owner owes. For every dollar of tax credit taken by a property owner, his or her income tax burden is reduced by one dollar (National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2012; National Park Service 2013; National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2014). Tyler, 128 Ligibel, and Tyler provide the following hypothetical example to illustrate the differences between a credit and a deduction: As an example, assume the rehab cost for a project is $100,000, with an incentive of 20 percent or $20,000. As a credit, the owner could reduce the amount of federal income tax owned by $20,000; this is a savings of the full $20,000. However, as a deduction, the actual savings would be $20,000 times the individual’s tax bracket (e.g., $20,000 X 28% tax bracket = $5,600). This illustrates the significant advantage of the tax credit (Tyler, Ligibel and Tyler 2009, p. 254). The rehabilitation tax credit is limited to income-producing (that is, depreciable) buildings and specifically excludes most owner-occupied, primary residences. The purpose of program is to encourage the rehabilitation and continued use of “certified historic structures”; that is, buildings listed on the National Register, either individually or as a contributing part of a National Register district. Buildings that are contributing parts of a local district are also eligible for the credit, providing the municipality is also a Certified Local Government through the National Park Service. However, individual properties listed under a local landmarks ordinance are excluded from the program. The tax credit is taken in support of a “certified rehabilitation.” The National Park Service defines this as a rehabilitation of a certified historic structure that is approved by the [National Park Service] as being consistent with the historic character of the property and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. The [National Park Service] assumes that some alteration of the historic building will occur to provide for an efficient use. However, the project must not damage, destroy, or cover materials or features, whether interior or exterior, that help define the building’s historic character (National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2014, p. 6). To qualify for the credit the rehabilitation must also be “substantial” by National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service standards. Rehabilitation expenditures over a 24-month period must exceed either $5,000 or the adjusted basis of the building and its structural components, whichever amount is greater. This threshold requirement 129 prevents a deluge of small-scale rehabilitation projects, which would prove an administrative burden to project reviewers at the National Park Service and local State Historic Preservation Office. The tax credit program acknowledges that the rehabilitation of a property to its historic state is typically more expensive than the non-historic rehabilitation of a structure or its outright demolition. The program was designed with the intention of offsetting some of the additional costs incurred by the property owner. Consistent figures for the number and amount of tax credit projects in Chicago are difficult to obtain. However, between 2000 and 2013, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency estimates that “over $2.3 billion of private investment has been stimulated by the federal income tax credits for historic preservation [and in] 2011, Illinois led the nation with more than $365 million in completed projects” (Jackson ca.2012). The Illinois Property Tax Assessment Freeze program was established during the 82nd Illinois General Assembly (1981-1982) and provides eligible owners of historic properties with twelve years of reduced property taxes. According to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, the program benefits both the owner-occupant and the community by: “rewarding owner-occupants for sensitively reinvesting in their homes; increasing the value of the rehabilitated property; strengthening neighborhoods and housing within a community; [and] encouraging landmark protection through the promotion, recognition, and designation of historic structures” (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 2011). The tax assessment freeze program, in contrast to the Federal tax credit program, is more popular in residential neighborhoods and in strong, expensive housing markets like Chicago’s11. It is also popular in Chicago because of high local tax burdens. Schwartz 11 Personal conversation with Mike Ward, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield, IL, August 12, 2008. 130 speaks to this in his evaluation of local preservation incentives including the recent Class “L” Property Tax Incentive in Cook County: Localities with high tax burdens are more likely to have effective [historic preservation] programs than localities with low tax burdens. The higher the tax bill, the greater the opportunity to provide meaningful financial incentives through substantial tax relief (Schwartz 1999, p. 1). Unlike the Federal rehabilitation tax credit program, which specifically addresses income-producing properties, this state program encourages the rehabilitation and continued use of residential, owner-occupied historic properties. Eligible historic properties include those listed individually on the National Register, a Chicago landmark, or properties that are “contributing” components to a National Register or local district. The program freezes the assessed value of an owner-occupied, principal residence for a period of eight years. In the four years that follow this eight-year period, the property’s assessed value steps up to an amount that is based on its current market value. To participate in the tax assessment freeze program, the owner must undertake a “substantial rehabilitation” of the historic property, as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2014). This is a rehabilitation where the eligible expenses—those undertaken in accordance with the aforementioned Federal Standards—equal or exceed 25% of the property’s fair market value in the year the rehabilitation begins. This minimum expenditure in rehabilitation costs favors neighborhoods on the edge between decline and renewal, where property values are not yet hyper-inflated but where the investment is in line with the neighborhood’s upward trajectory. Though the program focuses on resident-owners, it also allows—counterintuitively, perhaps—for house “flipping” by developers. The final incentive described here is the preservation easement donation program operated through Landmarks Illinois, a statewide non-profit. This program 131 began on an ad hoc basis in the 1970s before being formalized in the early-1980s. According to Landmarks Illinois, a preservation easement is “a legal agreement between a property owner and a qualified easement-holding organization [i.e. Landmarks Illinois] that protects a significant historic or cultural resource in perpetuity (Landmarks Illinois 2014). The easement protects all open-air façades of a historic building. The owner of a property with a preservation easement is required to consult with the easement holder before changes can be made to the façades. In donating a preservation easement, an owner is committing to the permanent protection of the historic building’s exteriors. The benefit to the property owner lies, of course, with their ability to avail themselves of tax benefits under the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980. The owner of a property with an easement may be eligible for a charitable donation income tax deduction. The amount of the deduction is based on an appraisal of the value of the easement itself. Since the easement exists in perpetuity, and runs with the property title, subsequent owners are both constrained by the easement’s restrictions and benefited by its tax relief provisions. 4.4 Preservation’s Changing Focus While history and cultural memory have been central to historic preservation for most of the field’s existence, other considerations arose in the last quarter of the twentieth century and reflect broader trends and interests within urban America and the changing view of what historic preservation can, and should, accomplish. Several of the more prominent examples of this are described below. These examples help explain preservation’s changing role within cities over the period from 1970-2000. Among the issues described here are the democratization of historic preservation, its repackaging as a sustainability issue, and the introduction of financial incentives to facilitate the 132 rehabilitation of historic buildings. All have relevance to the relationship between historic preservation and gentrification. Perhaps one of the broadest changes in the way historic preservation operates in the United States involved what has been described as the “democratization” of the practice. Early preservation celebrated the accomplishments of elite Americans or highlighted the works of master architects or exemplars of architectural styles. When only the most significant and superlative monuments were deemed worthy of preservation, the number of buildings impacted was naturally very small. For example, the first three buildings landmarked by the City of Chicago in 1970 were the Henry B. Clarke House (reputedly the oldest building in the city), architect H. R. Richardson’s masterpiece, the John J. Glessner House, and Louis Sullivan’s Carson, Pirie, Scott and Company Store Building, a staple in architectural history textbooks. All three buildings are exceptional and do not reflect the vast majority of common structures in Chicago. This emphasis on exceptionality and rarity began to change in the mid-1970s. As part of an overarching turn to populism in the United States and the call for a more pluralistic “history from the bottom up” (Karamanski 2010, p. 35), what constituted historical significance was expanded to include sites related to women, racial and ethnic minorities, the working classes, and other underrepresented groups (Hayden 1995). Vernacular architecture was also embraced. As a result of this expanded view of historical significance, the number of listed sites jumped dramatically beginning in the mid-1970s. This was facilitated by the listing of historic districts at the local level and on the National Register, some of which were enormous in geographic scope and encompassed hundreds of properties. During this period Chicago saw the listing of several historic districts significant for their association with the working classes. Among these were Mid-North District, with a concentration of brick rowhouses and workers 133 cottages that were representative of residential communities from the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the Old Town Triangle District. Both are located in Lincoln Park and listed by the city in 1977 (the latter was listed on the National Register in 1984). Another district of workers’ housing, the sprawling Sheffield Historic District, which encompasses the heart of Lincoln Park, was listed on the National Register in 1976. In scale and in terms of what they commemorated, these districts contrast starkly with Chicago’s earliest landmarks. The oil crisis of 1973-1974 propelled the issue of energy to the forefront of discussions of historic preservation. Preserving historic buildings became important not only for their associative values (a consideration that crested with American Bicentennial celebrations in 1975-1976 (Nelson 1988)), but for their “embodied energy”: an estimation of the energy inherent in an extant building and what would be lost if that building were to be demolished and another rebuilt (Fitch 1992; Jackson 2005). This argument that historic preservation promotes energy efficiency evolved in the years that followed. Justifications for preservation in the 1990s centered on the density and mixed-use character of historic neighborhoods as antithetical to suburban sprawl (Moe and Wilkie 1997). Later, in the 2000s, preservation became enmeshed in discussions of global climate change and the issue of embodied energy was re-framed in terms of “green” or sustainable architecture and design. The economics of historic preservation have also figured prominently in the field since the mid-1970s (de la Torre and Mason 1998; Mason 2005). Several key legislative acts injected an economic imperative into preservation and solidified the role of the private sector in what would become a public-private preservation process. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 was the first of these. This legislation removed incentives for developers to demolish “certified historic structures” by prohibiting demolition as a 134 deductible business expense. As Tyler aptly notes, prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, “developers were essentially reimbursed for demolition” (Tyler, Ligibel and Tyler 2009, p. 249). The act also allowed for the charitable contribution of easements to protect historic building façades and allowed taxpayers “to treat for depreciation purposes ‘substantially rehabilitated historic property’ as if they were the original users of the property”—in essence, providing owners of historic properties a tax break on the rehabilitation of their buildings (Joint Committee on Taxation 1976, p. 102). Tax incentives for historic preservation can be seen in the larger context of public-private programs (Grimsey and Lewis 2004) that allow government to promote private activities that serve the public good while minimizing economic risks that might otherwise be borne by taxpayers. Risk, in this case, might involve the public purchase of a historic building and assuming its longitudinal maintenance costs. This is an uncommon preservation solution in the United States. Mayor Richard M Daley, son of Chicago’s political “boss” Richard J. Daley, was particularly vocal in his support for the privatization of public services and other forms of public-private partnerships (Bennett 1997). Historic preservation fit relatively easily into the younger Daley’s redevelopment strategy for the city. His father, however, regarded new construction as the physical embodiment of his successes as a mayor and cared little for preservation. Chicago columnist Mike Royko alluded to his in his biography of Daley: Wherever [Daley] looks as he marches, there are new skyscrapers up or going up. The city has become an architect’s delight, except when the architects see the great Louis Sullivan’s landmark buildings being ripped down for parking garages or allowed to degenerate into slums. None of the new buildings were there before. His leadership put them there (Royko 1971p. 14). Incentivizing preservation was a way of allaying the fears of growth-oriented mayors and of casting preservation more as a development tool—and less as an 135 idealistic pursuit (Tyler, Ligibel and Tyler 2009). Moreover, where local landmarks ordinances and the police power were involved, incentives provided a means of softening the blows of regulation. This helped to counter a tear-down mentality that was especially prevalent among Chicago’s real estate barons. Arthur Rubloff, for example, once one of the city’s most influential developers, famously dismissed historic preservation in his observation that Illinois had exactly one historic building worthy of protection: Lincoln’s birth cabin in Springfield. Rubloff’s implication, of course, was that all of Chicago was fair game for redevelopment—something he demonstrated in his proposal for the North Loop renewal zone, which called for the sweeping demolition of all buildings in the area including the beloved Chicago Theater and many other landmark structures (Houston and Ziemba 1986). Two years after the Tax Reform Act, the watershed Revenue Act of 1978 established the Investment Tax Credit to support the rehabilitation of historic properties. This 10% credit for qualifying rehabilitation expenditures (as established by the Secretary of the Interior) was believed to be more attractive to property owners and investors than the depreciation incentives of the 1976 act (Market Segmentation Specialization Program 2002). The credit was geared toward income-producing properties: stores, offices, apartments, hotels, farms, and factories. The language of the law excluded, de facto, owner-occupied residences. The Economic Reform Act of 1981 expanded the financial incentives for preservation beyond previous legislation. Specifically, tax credits were expanded to include non-certified buildings of a minimum age in addition to certified historic buildings. A three-tier system was established: all buildings thirty or more years old were allowed a 15% credit; all buildings at least forty years old were allowed a 20% credit; and historic buildings were allowed a 25% credit. The passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 rolled 136 back the incentives established in 1981. A two-tier system of credits replaced the threetier system. Buildings built before 1936, whether certified as historic or not, were allowed a 10% credit. Certified historic buildings were allowed a 20% credit. Though described as “one of the most comprehensive and sweeping changes in our Nation’s history” (Market Segmentation Specialization Program 2002, p. 1-2), the Tax Reform Act of 1986 nevertheless retained its primary historic preservation incentives program, the Investment Tax Credit for rehabilitation, which has proven popular since its inception and has generated $66.09 billion in rehabilitation investment nationwide (National Park Service 2013, p. 21). As historic preservation distanced itself from history for its own sake and moved into the realm of economic development and revitalization, it also lost much of what little it had in the way of a social agenda. While encouraging piggybacking of historic rehabilitation tax credits with, for example, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) is commendable, the role of preservation as a way of broadly promoting social equity and inclusion in depressed neighborhoods is all but absent in urban policy discussions. The turn to neoliberal governance has elevated the role of the gentrifiers and their private capital as agents of change in cities. This was evident to Bryant and McGee in 1983, when, in summarizing preservation’s shortcomings in addressing the problems of gentrification head-on, they noted that the historic preservation movement can and must be made sensitive to housing needs and to larger social and economic forces in a given community. Moreover, no single strategy alone will serve as a brake on the gentrification of a neighborhood designated for preservation. Inevitably, housing costs will rise as neighborhoods improve. Historic preservation merely exacerbates the process by its direct appeal to the more affluent sectors of the housing market. What remains to be achieved is a reshaping of the process of historic preservation so that it does not continue to produce the socio-economic and racial segregation that has all too frequently been the end result of historically preserved or restored neighborhoods (Bryant and McGee 1983, p. 62). 137 All told, the evolving focus of historic preservation is seen by many as a pragmatic way to maintain relevance in the rapidly changing American landscape of the late-20th and early-21st centuries. Embracing populism has helped sustain preservation, as has appealing to prevailing neoliberal ideologies that equate the worth of a government program with its ability to dovetail with market-based solutions. In 1988 a reported for the Chicago Sun-Times captured this shift in his observation that It used to be that the strongest motivation for restoration was a deep sense of appreciate for history or for architectural quality [shared by] an eccentric few… Guess what? During the past two decades, such sentiments have spread to a large portion of the general populace. Along the way, the development of historic buildings has become big business—a reasonable way to make money” (Cotton 1988, p. 35). Yet at the same time, this evolution has also led to what Kurtz has described as the absence of an “issue monopoly” around which preservationists can coalesce (Kurtz 2006). This lack of a strong and consistent agenda has opened preservation to attacks from various sources, including developers who regard preservation as a capricious form of spot-zoning as well as disenfranchised groups, who see it as a way of surreptitiously altering the demographic and socioeconomic makeup of newly desirable historic neighborhoods. Writing in 1980, a journalist from the Chicago Metro News noted this trend: The irreversible loss of historically significant properties in minority communities is largely due to a lack of understanding and involvement by Blacks in the preservation movement in America. Much of the heritage of Blacks are [sic] vanishing from the American scene in the nation’s haste to rebuild its cities and make them more attractive for whites to return to (Morris 1980, p. 9). 138 Over the years, historic preservation has been attacked by critics as an elitist endeavor. Even following the “democratizing” turn of the 1970s, preservation continued to be assailed as an endeavor for the elite that may acknowledge the historical contributions of women, minorities, and the lower classes, but does little to involve these groups in contemporary preservation practice or empower them to invest in and enjoy historic places. To some extent these criticisms ring true. A clear indication of this can be seen in the programmatic requirements of the financial incentives programs described above. These programs assume a certain minimum level of expendable income in order to even participate. The Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, for example, includes the requirement that rehabilitation work be “substantial.” The structure of American preservation, which incentivizes through tax credits and tax assessment freezes, but generally not through outright grants-in-aid, in essence ensures that preservation activity will be skewed to the upper classes. Even honorific programs like the National Register of Historic Places require a level of proficiency with the program and with historical research and writing that typically excludes those without adequate training. 4.5 Historic Preservation Data This dissertation explores the spatial dimensions of governmental historic preservation activity in Chicago over the period 1970-2000. As the basis for this exploration, a large historic preservation data set was compiled from multiple public data sources and rendered usable in GIS. This data set shows the distribution of historic preservation activity across Chicago and reveals places were preservation activity is concentrated—as well as where little or no activity has occurred. The data described below inform the selection of the three case studies for qualitative analysis. 139 Two inventories of historic resources form the basis of the historic preservation data set used here: the National Register of Historic Places and the Chicago Landmarks program. The historic resources included in each of these inventories are not mutually exclusive and significant overlap exists between the two. Together, they form the most complete picture of governmental historic preservation activity in Chicago currently available. Data within this data set all relate to historic buildings and districts and projects like tax credits associated with them. The data include both spatial information (for example, geocoded street addresses for historic buildings and bounding coordinates for districts) and non-spatial attribute information (name of the historic resource, government preservation program(s) associated with it, date(s) it was officially “listed” or “landmarked,” and the amount of financial subsidy it received, if any). These data were cleaned and standardized in Excel and mapped in GIS. They were also aggregated by census tract and CCA. As discussed earlier in the chapter, historic preservation inventories like the National Register and Chicago Landmarks include different types of historic resources. Of interest here are individual buildings and historic districts. Individual buildings are treated as simple points in the GIS. For equivalence and comparison, buildings within historic district polygons are disaggregated into individual points to help convey the magnitude of the district [Figures 4.6-4.7]. This ensures a consistency in the base observation unit across all of the historic preservation data. Point data from a third data set, a layer that includes every building in Chicago as a point, is used to generate this disaggregated data set using the “select by location” function. 140 Figure 4.6: Map showing the National Register-listed Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District polygon feature in GIS. 141 Figure 4.7: Map showing the same district as above, with polygon feature disaggregated into individual points (buildings). The boundaries of historic districts are determined by a minimum-bounding box method, whereby all individual historic buildings are included and as many non-historic buildings as possible are excluded. While polygons of any shape and size are permitted under program guidelines, “islands” and “donut holes” generally are not. Within a district, properties are identified as “contributing” if they have historic significance or “non-contributing” if they do not. This distinction is clearly indicated in recent National Register and Chicago Landmarks data, but it is inconsistently reported in data from the late-1960s through the early-1980s. 142 In addition to the spatial and attribute data describing historic resources, this research also includes monetary values related to buildings that have participated in one or more of the financial assistance programs that support historic preservation. Included are data from the following programs: the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program (National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2012; National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services 2014); Illinois’ Historic Property Tax Assessment Freeze program (Illinois Historic Preservation Agency 2011); and the Historic Preservation Easement program (Joint Committee on Taxation 1976; Landmarks Illinois 2014; City of Chicago n.d.). However, it bears noting that these data are incomplete. Analog records for projects dating back forty or more years now prove extremely difficult to interpret [Figure 4.8]. This problem is particularly acute given that the rehabilitation projects described by the data are often long-term and can span periods of years. 143 Figure 4.8: Tax credit log sample from the early-1980s. Data from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield. This lack of completeness is mitigated, in part, through the qualitative evaluation of buildings and neighborhoods, which helps determine if, and to what extent, programs like the Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program were used. Financial incentives programs that support the physical rehabilitation of historic buildings typically have external outcomes that are highly visible [Figure 4.9]. Rehabilitation projects are often the most visible articulation of governmental preservation programs that otherwise exist primarily on paper. 144 Figure 4.9: 1900 North Freemont Street, a tax credit and tax assessment freeze project in the Sheffield Historic District, Lincoln Park neighborhood. Source: author. Spatial Distribution of Historic Preservation Data The historic preservation data set used in this research encompasses all of the programs described above. For each data point, the following attribute information was included: name of historic resource, related historic district (if applicable), address, related historic preservation program(s) and year(s) included in program, and amount of financial subsidy (if applicable). All preservation data were mapped using GIS and joined to Excel spreadsheet tables that include this descriptive information. The total number of historic preservation projects in a given census tract and the amount of public subsidy provided to the project allows, in approximate terms, for an evaluation of the magnitude of historic preservation activity within that tract. Aggregating the tracts into CCAs provides a sense of which neighborhoods in Chicago have seen concentrated preservation activity. Approximately one-third of the 847 Chicago census tracts included in this research have at least one preservation project within their 145 boundaries. Most of these tracts have multiple projects. Tracts in neighborhoods on the north, northwest, far south, and far southwest sides have several hundred each. At the CCA level, fifty percent of the preservation activity citywide has occurred in only four CCAs: Lincoln Park, Beverly, Pullman, and Hyde Park. The presence of one or more large historic districts in each of these neighborhoods is responsible for this. Furthermore, most preservation activity is concentrated in cluster 11, the target cluster identified through the PCA and K-Means cluster analysis. Of the twenty CCAs that have seen most preservation activity over the period of 1970-2000, fifteen fall into cluster 11 [Table 4.1]. RANK CCA COUNT TOTAL Percent of Total 1 Lincoln Park* 5,785 24.09% 2 Beverly* 2,765 11.51% 3 Pullman 2,044 8.51% 4 Hyde Park* 1,903 7.92% 5 Lakeview* 1,726 7.19% 6 West Town* 1,678 6.99% 7 Uptown* 1,516 6.31% 8 Kenwood* 1,425 5.93% 9 Near North Side* 896 3.73% 10 Morgan Park 734 3.06% 11 Near West Side* 670 2.79% 12 Loop 472 1.97% 13 Logan Square* 429 1.79% 14 Edgewater* 393 1.64% 15 Douglas* 385 1.60% 16 Austin 371 1.54% 17 Irving Park 269 1.12% 18 Oakland* 134 0.56% 19 Near South Side* 130 0.54% 20 Grand Boulevard* 77 0.32% CITY TOTAL 24,017 100% Table 4.1: Top 20 CCAs ranked by total # of preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. 146 An examination of the spatial distribution of the historic resources reveals consistent patterns. Regardless of program involved—that is, under which government program(s) the resources were recognized as historically significant—they consistently cluster in certain areas of the city. These are, by definition, neighborhoods that were settled early in Chicago’s history and consequently have higher concentrations of older buildings. A program like the National Register, for example, typically requires that a building be fifty years or older before consideration for inclusion in that program is given. However, not all old neighborhoods are home to historic resources. As a general rule, historic resources often “piggyback” across programs. That is to say, a site or district listed on the National Register is often subsequently listed as a Chicago Landmark or Landmark District. This is primarily an issue of economics. The research that goes into completing a National Register nomination is easily transferable to a local landmarks nomination, thereby saving money and effort. The result is that many National Register sites are also Chicago Landmarks [Figure 4.10]. 147 Figure 4.10: Map of the Loop showing coincidence of National Register listings and Chicago Landmarks. National Register districts and Chicago Landmark districts also tend to overlap, but they do so with less consistency. Because buildings in Chicago Landmark districts are subject to police power protections, and physical alterations are overseen by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, the boundaries of districts are drawn with considerable input from residents, property owners, developers, and elected officials. 148 The result is that local districts often reflect the inherently more politicized nature of local landmarking (Zhang 2013) and appear gerrymandered to include and exclude individual properties. They are also smaller on average than their counterpart National Register districts [Figure 4.11] and have a far more limited spatial distribution across Chicago. Figure 4.11: Maps showing the coincidence of National Register and Chicago Landmark districts: the Wicker Park district on Chicago’s northwest side. 149 The National Register distinguishes between classes of historic properties. As discussed earlier, two are relevant to this research: individual buildings and historic districts. Since listing on the National Register is primarily an honorific program with incentives and few regulatory impositions, listings are widespread throughout a city like Chicago and reflect a general public support for the program. National Register listings show a far greater spatial distribution—and impact far more historic properties—than those landmarked by the city. As would be expected, individual National Register buildings are found in older neighborhoods [Figure 4.12]. A clear concentration is found in the Loop. This reflects the early preservation practice of listing superlative historic resources like large commercial buildings—something that Chicago was especially attuned to, given its claim as the American birthplace of the skyscraper (van Leeuwen 1988; Saliga 1990). The Loop was also the site of many of Chicago’s early preservation battles (Bluestone 1994; Cahan 1994) and the need to list buildings there was perhaps more pressing than elsewhere in the city. The north, west, and near-south sides are also well-represented, as is the academic island of Hyde Park, nearby Kenwood, and South Shore, with its historic apartment complexes. Isolated sites are found elsewhere on the far northwest side and represent significant houses, churches, and institutional buildings within the context of these neighborhoods. The far south and southwest sides are devoid of any individual National Register-listed buildings. 150 Figure 4.12: National Register of Historic Places (individual buildings), 1966-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. National Register historic districts of varying sizes generally follow the same geographic patterns as individual buildings, but encompass far more buildings [Figure 151 4.13]. Several noteworthy exceptions are found on Chicago’s south side. The predominantly residential Beverly neighborhood at the city’s southwestern edge is home to the large Ridge Historic District (listed 1976). To the east, near Lake Calumet, is the once-independent company town of Pullman. Annexed to Chicago in 1889, it is now one of the city’s most historic neighborhoods. The Pullman Historic District (listed 1970) encompasses the buildings that comprised the Pullman's Palace Car Company factory works, administration buildings, shops, hotel buildings, and housing for the company’s workers (Buder 1967). While relatively small in size, the Douglas CCA between downtown and Hyde Park is home to the Black Metropolis Thematic District (listed 1986; a similar “Black Metropolis District” was designated a Chicago Landmark in 1998)—a rarity in that it is a non-contiguous collection of historic buildings, in this case all significant as reminders of an African-American neighborhood that flourished during and after the Great Migration of the 20th century. 152 Figure 4.13: National Register of Historic Places historic districts, 1966-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. 153 Ranking Chicago’s CCAs based on the aggregated number of National Register of Historic Places resources, including both individual sites and districts, reveals that fourteen of the top twenty CCAs fall into PCA cluster 11 [Table 4.2]. RANK CCA Percent of Total Lincoln Park* NR ALL COUNT BY CCA 4,385 1 2 Beverly* 2,577 14.20% 3 Hyde Park* 1,873 10.32% 4 Lakeview* 1,551 8.55% 5 Uptown* 1,322 7.29% 6 Pullman 1,199 6.61% 7 West Town 1,064 5.86% 8 Morgan Park 701 3.86% 9 Kenwood* 596 3.29% 10 Near North Side* 585 3.22% 11 Near West Side* 556 3.06% 12 Logan Square* 414 2.28% 13 Edgewater* 369 2.03% 14 Austin 362 2.00% 15 Loop 249 1.37% 16 Irving Park 134 0.74% 17 Near South Side* 47 0.26% 18 Douglas* 33 0.18% 19 Humboldt Park 25 0.14% 20 Grand Boulevard* 14 0.08% CITY TOTAL 18,142 100% 24.17% Table 4.2: Top 20 CCAs ranked by National Register preservation activity count and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. Because of the piggybacking described earlier, City of Chicago individual landmarks and districts are distributed in much the same way as National Register individual sites and districts [Figures 4.14-4.15]. Yet in terms of the number of properties affected, local programs have far less impact than the National Register. Concentrations are found in the Loop and in arms extending to the north, south, and west. However, several individual sites are also located in the Beverly neighborhood of Chicago’s southwest side. The concentration of sites in the Loop again reflects 154 Chicago’s reckoning of itself as the birthplace of modern American architecture and as the home of the skyscraper (van Leeuwen 1988; Saliga 1990) and many of the Loop landmarks are tied to this history. Nevertheless, local supporters of preservation bemoan the city’s reluctance to list many more landmarks in the Loop, particularly important buildings like the Wrigley Building and Merchandise Mart (Sharoff 1996). 155 Figure 4.14: City of Chicago Landmarks (individual buildings), 1968-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. 156 Figure 4.15: City of Chicago Landmark historic districts, 1968-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. Historic preservation activity by the City of Chicago has tended to follow the lead established by the National Register program. However, far fewer buildings across the 157 city have been impacted. Chicago Landmark buildings and districts are found in comparatively few CCAs [Table 4.3]. While Lincoln Park is again a hub of preservation activity, there is less emphasis placed on CCAs on the city’s north side. RANK CCA COUNT Percent of Total 1 Lincoln Park* 1,155 23.95% 2 Pullman 842 17.46% 3 Kenwood* 797 16.53% 4 West Town* 572 11.86% 5 Douglas* 342 7.09% 6 Beverly* 166 3.44% 7 Near North Side* 164 3.40% 8 Oakland* 134 2.78% 9 Irving Park 130 2.70% 10 Near South Side* 80 1.66% 11 Near West Side* 77 1.60% 12 Loop 69 1.43% 13 Lakeview* 64 1.33% 14 Grand Boulevard 60 1.24% 15 Forest Glen 51 1.06% 16 Uptown* 42 0.87% 17 Morgan Park 27 0.56% 18 North Lawndale 10 0.21% 19 Austin 7 0.15% 20 Hyde Park* 6 0.12% 21 Edgewater* 3 0.06% CITY TOTAL 4,822 100% Table 4.3: Top 20 CCAs (plus Edgewater) ranked by Chicago Landmark preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. Financial incentives are awarded to historic resources that are either listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register, or to those listed as Chicago Landmarks. As a result, the spatial distribution of financial incentives closely follows these other programs. In addition, the rehabilitation tax credit is programmatically limited to incomeproducing buildings and excludes most owner-occupied, primary residences. Because of this requirement, tax credit projects cluster in areas like the Loop, with its dense 158 concentration of commercial and office spaces, or in CCAs like Uptown with its numerous rental apartments [Figure 4.16]. 159 Figure 4.16: Tax credit projects, ca.1976-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. 160 Ranking Chicago’s CCAs by number of tax credit projects reveals expected results [Table 4.4]. The Uptown and Loop CCAs occupy the first and second position with areas in close proximity to the downtown following. RANK CCA Tax Cred COUNT by CCA Percent of Total 1 Uptown* 49 24.75% 2 Loop 31 15.66% 3 Near West Side* 28 14.14% 4 Near North Side 20 10.10% 5 Lincoln Park* 16 8.08% 6 West Town* 12 6.06% 7 Lakeview* 7 3.54% 8 Logan Square* 6 3.03% 9 South Shore 6 3.03% 10 Edgewater* 5 2.53% 11 West Garfield Park 3 1.52% 12 Austin 2 1.01% 13 Grand Boulevard 2 1.01% 14 Hyde Park* 2 1.01% 15 Lower West Side* 2 1.01% 16 Near South Side* 2 1.01% 17 Douglas* 1 0.51% 18 Englewood 1 0.51% 19 Irving Park 1 0.51% 20 Kenwood* 1 0.51% Table 4.4: Top 20 CCAs (plus Edgewater) ranked by Tax Credit preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. The State of Illinois’ Tax Assessment Freeze program is available exclusively to homeowners. Unlike the Federal rehabilitation tax credit program, which is reserved for income-producing properties, there is comparatively little activity involving this program in historically non-residential areas [Figure 4.17]. An exception is the Loop. The large number of tax assessment freeze projects here represents the conversion of a small number of commercial or industrial buildings to residential use as “loft” condominiums. An example of this adaptive reuse is the former Peterson Building located in the South Loop Printing House District (listed on the National Register in 1978) [Figure 4.18]. Fifty 161 individual units within this former printers building participated in the Tax Assessment Freeze program. However, most program activity is found on the city’s north side, particularly in the CCAs that run along the lake. Property-owners in Kenwood and Hyde Park on the south side and Beverly on the southwest side have also been active users of this program [Table 4.5]. 162 Figure 4.17: Tax assessment freeze projects, ca.1982-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. 163 Figure 4.18: The Peterson Building. Source: Gold Coast Realty-Chicago. 164 RANK CCA Percent of Total Lincoln Park* COUNT (includes multiple units in multi-unit buildings) 229 1 2 Near North Side* 127 14.85% 3 Loop 123 14.39% 4 Lakeview* 104 12.16% 5 Uptown* 103 12.05% 6 Kenwood* 31 3.63% 7 West Town* 30 3.51% 8 Beverly* 22 2.57% 9 Hyde Park* 22 2.57% 10 Edgewater* 16 1.87% 11 Douglas* 9 1.05% 12 Logan Square* 9 1.05% 13 Near West Side* 9 1.05% 14 Morgan Park 5 0.58% 15 Irving Park 4 0.47% 16 East Garfield Park 3 0.35% 17 Pullman 3 0.35% 18 South Shore 3 0.35% 19 Grand Boulevard 1 0.12% 20 Near South Side* 1 0.12% CITY TOTAL 855 100% 26.78% Table 4.5: Top 20 CCAs ranked by Tax Credit preservation activity counts and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. The Tax Assessment Freeze program is the only preservation program for which financial data is both available and relatively consistent for the research period 19702000. As measured in project expenditures, much of this activity is concentrated on the affluent north side of the city, with additional concentrations in Kenwood, Hyde Park, and Beverly [Table 4.6]. 165 RANK CCA Total in inflation-adjusted dollars Percent of Total 1 Near North Side* $56,257,234.14 34.35% 2 Lincoln Park* $42,432,440.78 25.91% 3 Edgewater* $15,168,979.36 9.26% 4 Loop $12,892,578.84 7.87% 5 Kenwood* $9,782,701.74 5.97% 6 Lakeview* $8,417,910.35 5.14% 7 Uptown* $5,978,761.17 3.65% 8 Hyde Park* $4,449,477.00 2.72% 9 West Town* $2,479,994.00 1.51% 10 Douglas* $1,291,015.00 0.79% 11 Beverly* $1,000,226.77 0.61% 12 Near South Side* $990,000.00 0.60% 13 Near West Side* $703,497.91 0.43% 14 Logan Square* $642,872.35 0.39% 15 East Garfield Park $435,006.96 0.27% 16 Rogers Park $360,215.73 0.22% 17 Irving Park $201,289.58 0.12% 18 South Shore $110,007.44 0.07% 19 Morgan Park $104,088.76 0.06% 20 Pullman $69,882.59 0.04% Table 4.6: Top 20 CCAs ranked by Tax Assessment Freeze preservation activity values and as a percentage of the total citywide. *=CCA falls in cluster 11 in whole or in part. All dollars amounts adjusted for inflation to year 2000 values. Properties with historic preservation easements cluster in the Loop and along Lake Michigan in both the Gold Coast and Lincoln Park neighborhoods. These are areas where zoning allows new development that is considerably larger than the remaining pre-1900 mansions and pre-war apartment buildings [Figure 4.19]. Preservation easements thus provide the owners of historic properties with an incentive not to undertake demolition in order to develop their land within allowable limits. These easements run in perpetuity and subsequent owners are constrained by the easement’s restrictions. Because this is considered a burden by some property-owners, the use of easements has seen relatively limited use in Chicago. 166 Figure 4.19: Preservation Easements, ca.1976-2000. Map shows year 2000 census tracts with PCA cluster tracts highlighted. 167 Selection of Case Study Neighborhoods The PCA and cluster analysis components in this research revealed 163 census tracts in Chicago experiencing similar scales of upgrading. Of this cluster, three census tracts in three different CCAs were selected for in-depth qualitative analysis to reveal the diverse ways in which historic preservation interacts with the processes of capital reinvestment, gentrification, and displacement. The three CCAs have each been foci for historic preservation. In terms of total activity counts across all preservation programs, all rank in the top fifteen CCAs of the city’s total of seventy-seven. The selection of census tracts for case studies was accomplished using the large and wholly unique historic preservation data set discussed in the section above. This data set describes the preservation activity across Chicago during the period 1970-2000 and incorporates all major preservation programs at work within the city: the National Register, Chicago Landmarks, and various financial incentives programs. It reveals the spatial distribution of historic preservation in Chicago and highlights areas of concentrated activity. The three selected case study neighborhoods show considerable preservation activity and different facets of the interaction between preservation and gentrification. This furthers the understanding of diversity in these processes. The first case study is tract 718 in the affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood, which is also part of the Lincoln Park CCA. This serves as the baseline neighborhood since Lincoln Park is widely considered Chicago’s most gentrified area and, it is argued here, the best example of super-gentrification in the city. Lincoln Park is an example of a neighborhood at once popularized by its historic and architectural qualities and yet, over time, physically compromised by its own successes both as a historic area and an affluent residential enclave close to the Loop. 168 Local groups actively promoted historic preservation in Lincoln Park beginning in the 1960s when it was still a transitional neighborhood and home to many poor residents. By the end of the 1970s, however, the neighborhood was largely affluent and most of its marginalized population—including a pocket of Hispanics in the western reaches—had been displaced to CCAs like West Town and its Wicker Park neighborhood. Historic preservation activity is far more concentrated in Lincoln Park than in any other CCA. Yet, as the case study will reveal, the neighborhood has also seen considerable degradation in its historic fabric through major alterations to individual historic buildings and through outright demolition. The new-build variant of gentrification is clearly evident in Lincoln Park. Census tract 317 represents the second case study. This tract is located in the Sheridan Park neighborhood in the Uptown CCA of Chicago’s north side. Uptown, in general, has been home to a poor and “threatening” population and thus did not gentrify as early as its neighbors to the south, Lake View and Lincoln Park. Nevertheless, Sheridan Park is home a large National Register historic district and has seen considerable use of the Federal rehabilitation tax credit program. Rising costs of living and the transformation of rental units into condominiums has displaced some of the neighborhood’s longstanding poor population. Politicians and affordable housing groups serving Uptown have been successful in staving off some of the developer-driven reinvestment in the neighborhood, which locals in the 1980s feared was being deliberately transformed into “Yuptown” for the benefit of the growing numbers of professionals and college graduates. The final case study is tract 308 in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville area of the Edgewater CCA. This CCA is located to the immediate north of Uptown but remained stable over the course of the 20th century while Uptown and parts of Lincoln Park 169 declined. Of the three case studies, this is the most recent to experience upgrading. Displacement has had less of a race component and instead has involved some gays and lesbians being priced out of the neighborhood. Historic preservation activity over the period 1970-2000 was driven by local strong neighborhood organizations, in particular the Edgewater Historical Society. This group promoted the history of the CCA and the use of historic preservation as a tool for instilling pride in the community and encouraging reinvestment in historic properties. Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville is home to the National Register-listed LakewoodBalmoral Historic District. Many single-family homeowners in this district have used the State of Illinois’ tax assessment freeze program to rehabilitate their own properties. This stands in contrast to the tax credit projects of Uptown, which largely served the needs of developers and their rental apartments. Historic Preservation Data Limitations Not all data sets describing the historic preservation programs in Chicago were used in this research. Certain preservation programs were purposefully omitted because their impact is comparatively small or they did not dovetail with the other data or the overarching research goals. This included the National Park Service’s National Historic Landmarks program. National Historic Landmarks are the country’s superlative historic resources. They are nationally significant resources “with exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States” (National Park Service 2014). Of the approximately 2,500 National Historic Landmarks nationwide, Chicago is home to approximately forty of these sites. Although omitted as an independent data set, National Historic Landmarks are, by default, also listed on the National Register. 170 The 9,000 properties that constitute the Chicago Historic Resource Survey were also omitted. The rationale for this was that these data are intended as a working tool to guide city officials in their planning and not a formal recognition of a building’s historic status. Commissioners from the city’s planning department noted a common misconception about the survey in an editorial to the Chicago Tribune regarding a 2003 investigative series on preservation undertaken by reporters from that newspaper. The commissioners decried what they considered flawed reporting by noting that the series assumes—and repeatedly asserts—that every building listed in the Chicago Historic Resources Survey is a potential landmark. In reality, the survey is one of many research and investigative tools used by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. To view every building in the survey as equal disregards the history or architectural significance of one structure relative to another (Berg and Roberson 2003). Because the Chicago Historic Resource Survey confers no immediate benefits to property owners, data from the program were omitted from this study. Data from programs that might logically be included but fall mostly outside of the research timeframe are also omitted. An example of this is the Cook County Class-L Property Tax Incentive (Cook County Assessor's Office 2014). This historic preservation incentive functions like the State’s tax assessment freeze incentive, but it was initiated in 1997 and thus contributes little to the understanding of preservation in Chicago over the period 1970-2000. Similarly, the City of Chicago’s Façade Rebate Program (initiated 2010) (City of Chicago n.d.), city-supported Historic Chicago Greystone Initiative (2006) of the Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, Inc. (Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago Inc. 2014), and the Historic Chicago Bungalow Association (2000) (Historic Chicago Bungalow Association 2014), initiated by former mayor Richard M. Daley, are outside the project timeframe are thus excluded. 171 In addition to excluding data related to certain historic preservation programs, this research also omitted categories of data that provide little insight into the relationship between preservation and gentrification. Chief among these were historic resources that were not built primarily to house human activity, since gentrification is tied closely to residential and commercial buildings and their change in occupancy and use. As discussed elsewhere in this dissertation, the National Register identifies five possible categories of historic resources: buildings, archaeological sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. Similarly, the Chicago landmarks ordinance identifies areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and objects for designation by ordinance as Chicago Landmarks. Only buildings and districts were deemed important to this research. Historic resources as varied as the Site of the First Self-Sustaining Nuclear Reaction, the World War II German submarine U-505, Humboldt Park, and the Jean Baptiste Point Du Sable Homesite (that is, a building no longer extant) were excluded under this rubric. Atypical buildings that house human activity but have no relevance to gentrification were also excluded. An example of this is the Chicago Harbor Lighthouse on Lake Michigan. 4.6 Conclusion Historic preservation in Chicago and other American cities began as a grassroots effort to slow the demolition of historic buildings and neighborhoods. In the 1960s and 1970s, the movement was largely a reaction to disinvestment and abandonment in urban neighborhoods. It soon evolved into a way for communities to counter another threat: government agencies and their sweeping solutions for urban renewal. “In an important sense,” writes J. Peter Byrne, “preservation law was erected as a shield against planners” (Byrne 2012, p. 686). The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 helped curtail destructive Federal projects in historic neighborhoods while the City of 172 Chicago landmarks ordinance of 1968 provided the city with police powers that could be used to prevent the demotion of privately-owned buildings. While the city often opted not to exert this power, its existence symbolized a commitment to the city’s built heritage. This heritage would later become an important marketing tool and a way to sell Chicago’s competitive advantages to new residents and investors. Satler notes how “[i]n a global context, preserving local identity can help reverse the growing trend of ahistorical flows and irreducible identities of local communities” (Satler 2006, p. 40). In this sense historic buildings and neighborhoods were seen as a form of cultural capital (Featherstone 1994). The most visible expression of this cultural capital are the plaques and signs that often adorn historic buildings and districts and proclaim their historical worth to passers-by [Figures 4.20-4.21 ]. Often, these are the only visual indication that a building or district has officially been determined “historic.” 173 Figure 4.20: Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1999) sign in the Edgewater neighborhood. Source: author. Figure 4.21: National Register of Historic Places plaque, Sheridan Park Historic District (listed 1985), Uptown neighborhood. Source: author. The scope of preservation activity in Chicago continued to evolve and expand. Historic buildings were increasingly seen as existing assets, not liabilities. They 174 contained “embodied energy,” as the argument went, and to simply demolish them was tantamount to wasting previously spent energy and effort. Moreover, there was growing awareness in the era of suburbanization of the historical and architectural qualities of old neighborhoods and their non-replicability as commodities. Particularly with the introduction of financial incentives to support private rehabilitation work, historic preservation was becoming more of a redevelopment and planning tool to save these commodities. As Chicago Tribune architecture critic Paul Gapp noted in 1978, the “preservation movement today is increasingly regarded as a means of conserving energy and raw materials, creating jobs, reviving inner cities, and even making real estate profits” (Gapp 1978, p. 1). In Chicago, mayors like Richard M. Daley (in office 1989-2011) were supportive of preservation projects that helped cast Chicago as a historic and architecturally significant global destination. There were clear limits to this support, however. When the interests of historic preservation collided with those of the business community, developers in particular, or with those of large institutions, then the commitment to protecting historic buildings and neighborhoods quickly fell by the wayside (Joravsky 2003). Examples of historic resources sacrificed on the altar of redevelopment included the McGraw-Hill Building on North Michigan Avenue (Wangensteen 1996) and the famed Maxwell Street neighborhood (Cresswell and Hoskins 2008). The latter fell in the late-1990s to the University of Illinois at Chicago’s $500 million campus expansion (Brookstein 2000-2001). The data discussed in this chapter provide a broad overview of where in Chicago historic preservation activity has concentrated over the years. These data were compiled from various discrete public sources. Analog data were transcribed and entered into Excel spreadsheets and existing digital data was imported. The data were 175 then cleaned, standardized for purposes of comparison, and geocoded for use in GIS so that geographic patterns could be identified. Yet these data only hint at the rich and nuanced character of historic preservation activity as described in the paragraphs immediately above. They fail to capture the political and social wrangling that often accompanies preservation or the unique physical characteristics of neighborhoods that can determine the types of preservation programs employed. This shortcoming is addressed in the following three chapters. Each chapter provides an in-depth, qualitative analysis of one of the three case studies: Lincoln Park, Sheridan Park, and Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville. These were selected from the cluster identified during the PCA and K-Means analysis and represent concentrations of preservation activity in three different CCAs. 176 Chapter 5: Case Study #1: Lincoln Park 5.1 Introduction In this and the following two chapters, three gentrified neighborhoods with significant historic preservation activity are examined to reveal the dynamic and changing relationship between gentrification and preservation. These three neighborhoods are all derived from Cluster #11 of the K-means cluster analysis and are experiencing similar levels of social and physical upgrading associated with gentrification. They are also high-density historic preservation tracts located in Cluster 11 CCAs with significant preservation activity, as measured by the total number of buildings impacted by one or more of the preservation programs available within the city12 [Table 5.1]. The three CCAs in which the three case studies neighborhood are located represent approximately 32% of all historic preservation activity within Cluster 11. The Lincoln Park CCA alone is home to 24% of the cluster’s preservation activity. 12 To ensure consistent comparisons of historic preservation data spanning three decades, historic districts are abstracted. All buildings within the district, based on City of Chicago data, are included within their boundaries. This is done with the full recognition that preservation practice typically dictates that buildings within districts be categorized as contributing or non-contributing. (Early preservation designations sometimes included a third category to earmark buildings of “exceptional significance.”) Since data from the early part of this research period frequently lacks such categorical distinctions, all buildings within a district are considered “historic” to allow consistent comparisons of the scale of preservation occurring within a neighborhood. 177 CCA rank CCA Historic building counts Historic buildings as % of total 1 LINCOLN PARK 5,785 24.09 2 Beverly 2,765 11.51 3 Pullman 2,044 8.51 4 Hyde Park 1,903 7.92 5 Lakeview 1,722 7.19 6 West Town 1,678 6.99 7 UPTOWN 1,516 6.31 8 Kenwood 1,425 5.93 9 Near North Side 896 3.73 10 Morgan Park 734 3.06 11 Near West Side 670 2.79 12 Loop 472 1.97 13 Logan Square 429 1.79 14 EDGEWATER 393 1.64 15 Douglas 385 1.60 22,821 95.02 1,196 4.98 24,017 100.00 -- Top 15 Total -- Remaining CCAs -- Citywide Total Table 5.1: Rank of top fifteen CCAs by approximate historic building count and percentage of total. CCAs that are home to case study tracts are bolded; italicized CCAs are not in Cluster 11, neither wholly nor in part. The case study tracts were selected for qualitative analysis in order to shed light on the diverse and changing relationship between gentrification and neighborhoods that have been officially designated as historic by one or more governmental entities, either the National Park Service (by way of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency) or City of Chicago. The use of multiple case studies supports a central premise in this research regarding gentrification’s diversity and its relationship to different forms of preservation activity. These differences are largely a function of time; of the changing milieu within Chicago and the expectations of what preservation can achieve in a neighborhood. This 178 diversity is also, however, shaped by different actors and by a variety of capital reinvestment processes. The case study chapters all proceed in this way. First, following a brief introduction to the case study itself, the greater CCA is described to give a sense of history of the area and the changes, both social and physical, that it experienced between 1970 and 2000. This includes a discussion of the quantitative changes within the CCA and the case study. The chapter then moves into a discussion of the case study area itself, which involves the census tracts that were selected on the basis of the quantitative analysis—the PCA and cluster analysis. In the qualitative analysis, the nexus of historic preservation activity and gentrification are described at both the spatial scale of the CCA and the case study tract itself. Each chapter then concludes with an explanation of the significance of the case study to our understanding of the relationship between gentrification and historic preservation in Chicago. Where appropriate, the conclusion also provides a sense of the post-2000 social and physical trajectory of the CCA and case study area. In the case of Lincoln Park, the evolving pressure to redevelop historic buildings, even those within its historic districts, has created a contentious climate with pro-preservation and pro-development residents struggling to shape the area’s future direction. Fundamentally, historic preservation promotes the protection, rehabilitation, and interpretation of historic resources. The governmental tools used to achieve these objectives have evolved over time, but they remain consistent in what they are broadly trying to achieve. What changes most over the period between 1970 and 2000 is the logic of preservation and how it is used by residents, neighborhood groups, developers, and the local government to accomplish revitalization goals that are subsidiary to the 179 primary objectives of historic preservation: the genuine interest, at least among some, in preserving history and historic buildings for their own sake. Three case study neighborhoods with differing histories, populations, and morphologies—building stock, density, architectural style and form—allows for a rich qualitative analysis of these changes. For example, historic preservation in Lincoln Park was originally embraced through informal means and as a response to the perceived threats of government-sponsored urban renewal (Michael 2007). Once these threats had subsided, preservation became more of a means to promote the neighborhood and to stave off individual, private redevelopment projects that were considered out-of-scale for their surroundings or otherwise undesirable. In both cases, citizens of Lincoln Park fought the ethos of “raze and raise.” In sum, this discussion helps dispel the notion that only one type of neighborhood satisfies the conditions for gentrification and supports the tenet that a single city is fertile ground for the study of gentrification’s diversity. 5.2 Lincoln Park CCA The focus of this chapter is census tract 718. This case study tract, the baseline neighborhood for this study of gentrification, is located in the Lincoln Park neighborhood within the Lincoln Park CCA [Figure 5.1]. This large CCA13 is situated on Chicago’s north side, approximately four miles from the Loop, with its eastern border hugging Lake Michigan and its namesake public park. In the popular press and in scholarly literature on urban redevelopment in Chicago, the area is frequently mentioned as the city’s first, 13 It bears mentioning that “Lincoln Park” is a loosely defined and fluid sobriquet used to describe the neighborhood immediately around the namesake public park. However, the official CCA of Lincoln Park is expansive and accompanies no fewer than eight unofficial (i.e. not officially recognized by the city for planning purposes) and changing neighborhoods, one of which is also referred to as “Lincoln Park.” See DeBaise, C. (1998). It's Hard to Tell Today, but Lincoln Park Once Was an... Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Bennett, L. (2010). The Third City: Chicago and American Urbanism. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 180 best-articulated, and most traditional example of gentrification (Fidel 1992; DeBaise 1998; Hudspeth 2003; Rast 2005; Weber, Doussard, Bhatta and McGrath 2006; Betancur 2011). The Chicago Tribune called Lincoln Park “one of the clearest examples of gentrification in the city today,” one accompanied by increasing property values and the displacement of the poor (Sebastian 1980, p. B1B). 181 Figure 5.1: Map with location of Lincoln Park CCA and case study neighborhood. The Lincoln Park CCA is diverse in terms of land use. Significant land is given over to residential, commercial, institutional, and public uses. Of interest to this research into preservation and gentrification are the residential uses in the area. A recent study of housing in Chicago and across Cook County revealed that the CCA has a significantly 182 higher percentage of condominiums than the city as a whole (41.3% vs. 20.2%) and smaller percentages of single-family houses (10.8% vs. 25.3%) and 2-4 unit buildings (17.2% vs. 27%) [Table 5.2]. Nevertheless, of the CCAs north of Chicago’s Loop that border Lake Michigan, Lincoln Park’s percentage of single-family homes is nearly double that of its nearest rivals (Edgewater and Rogers Park each have approximately 5%). The historic areas of Lincoln Park are those with concentrations of older, lower-density housing stock from the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Housing type Single-family house Condominium 2-4 unit building 5-49 unit building 50+ unit building Lincoln Park 10.8% 41.3% 17.2% 16.9% 13.8% Chicago 25.3% 20.2% 27.0% 19.7% 7.8% Table 5.2: Housing Stock in the Lincoln Park CCA and Chicago, 2014. Source: Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. Gentrification in parts of the Lincoln Park CCA represent a classic form in terms of when the process occurred, the actors involved, and the overarching cycle of decline and rebirth that the area experienced. Perhaps the most visible sign of this can be found in the most prominent physical face of Lincoln Park: its buildings [Figures 5.2-5.4]. The eastern and central parts of the CCA showed signs of gentrification early, beginning in the 1950s, and these areas have continued to upgrade since (Bennett 1990; Suttles 1990; Bennett 2010). Moreover, changes in the census data reveal an upward trajectory in property values, residential income, and other key socioeconomic and housing indicators that suggest the beginnings of “super-gentrification” in the eastern and central parts of the CCA: that is, the “transformation of already gentrified, prosperous and solidly upper-middle-class neighborhoods into much more exclusive and expensive enclaves” (Lees 2003, p. 2487). This is corroborated by post-2000 developments in the case study census tract wherein multiple city lots have been purchased by a single owner, cleared 183 of existing structures, and recombined to allow for the erection of a single, monumental residence. Lincoln Park, a neighborhood that was originally home to the working class proletariat during Chicago’s Gilded Age, is now synonymous with wealth and privilege. Figure 5.2: Renovated single-family home at 1722 North North Park Avenue, Old Town Triangle neighborhood, Lincoln Park. Source: City of Chicago. 184 Figure 5.3: Renovated rowhouses on the 2200 block of North Kenmore Avenue, DePaul neighborhood, Lincoln Park. Source: author. Figure 5.4: Renovated commercial/residential building at 1914 1914-16 16 North Sheffield Avenue, Ranch Triangle neighborhood, Lincoln Park. Source: author. Lincoln Park is also considered one of Chicago’s most historically significant areas (Foerstner 1986) and is renowned for the vernacular architecture that makes up its 185 neighborhoods. The historic fabric of Lincoln Park dates mainly from the years between the 1871 fire and World War II, with noteworthy exceptions in the string of post-war lakeshore high-rises and more teardowns scattered throughout. This historic architecture has played a significant role in the area’s gentrification. Historic buildings were originally used by locals and neighborhood organizations to counteract the largescale, modernist development in the 1950s and 1960s. Later, they served as a tool to popularize and market the neighbor and its uniquely urban attributes. The interplay of gentrification, urban development, and historic preservation makes the Lincoln Park CCA an important case study in the context of Chicago. A close examination of Lincoln Park’s development reveals a familiar arc seen in many gentrified American neighborhoods (Pacyga and Skerrett 1986). The neighborhood began as a working class ethnic enclave in the last quarter of the 19th century; much of its building stock reflects these humble origins. It then experienced decline during the interwar Depression years through white flight-driven population loss and disinvestment and finally reemerged as a fully gentrifying, postindustrial neighborhood in the final decades of the 20th century (Betancur, Domeyko and Wright 2001). Lincoln Park is a large CCA and gentrification occurred here in a gradual and piecemeal fashion. It began in the 1950s in the CCA’s southeast corner, in the Old Town Triangle neighborhood (Fidel 1992). Old Town Triangle benefited from several proximity factors: from the genteel Gold Coast neighborhood, which was located to the immediate south, and from nearby Lake Michigan. Old Town Triangle also had direct access to the Loop via elevated trains and the Lake Shore Drive expressway. Early gentrifiers in Old Town Triangle practiced what became known as “sweat equity”—in this 186 case, the rehabilitation of one’s own home by hand. The work ethic of these pioneering gentrifiers was celebrated at the time and continues to hold a reverential fascination among neighborhood residents even today [Figure 5.5]. Figure 5.5: Image from an article in Old Town Triangle Newsletter, March/April 2013, celebrating the “sweat equity” of pioneering women gentrifiers in Lincoln Park. Source: Old Town Triangle Association. From Old Town Triangle gentrification spread into adjacent areas to the north and west. By the 1980s, most of the Lincoln Park CCA, including the case study neighborhood described in this section, was fully gentrified or in the process of gentrifying. In 1984 the Chicago Tribune waxed on about the positive changes in Lincoln Park (and adjacent Lake View) over the previous twenty years: the area “contains some of Chicago’s real estate hot spots as many older buildings are rehabilitated and resold for many times their 1960s prices” (Myers 1984, p. G3). While city officials acknowledged that displacement was accompanying such explosive growth in gentrifying neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, an optimistic view was taken of its consequences. In a particularly blatant example of this, deputy commissioner of the Department of Housing, Louis Pagones, was quoted in the Chicago 187 Tribune cavalierly defending the gentrification-fueled displacement of families: “The net effect is positive [on displaced families]… They choose buildings that are more substantial” (Brotman 1981, p. B2). As it happened, the “more substantial” buildings chosen by the evicted tenants described in this article was the Chicago Housing Authority’s notorious Cabrini-Green housing. Gentrification proceeded at different rates and in somewhat different forms within the CCA. As Fidel noted, by 1980, “Lincoln Park as a whole had become distinctly different from the rest of the city. But within the community, the relative social status of the different neighborhoods was essentially similar to what they had previously been and reflected the time sequence of gentrification” (Fidel 1992, p. 154). The eight neighborhoods within the Lincoln Park CCA and their respective neighborhood organizations maintain their distinctiveness through various community activities and projects. These include proclamatory signage delineating the boundaries of the neighborhood [Figure 5.6], promotional publications, events like art fairs and historic home tours, and beginning in the 1990s, organizational websites. 188 Figure 5.6: “Sheffield Garden District of Chicago” banner, Sheffield neighborhood of Lincoln Park. Source: author. Gentrification in Lincoln Park proceeded in developmental stages that are clearly identifiable and in many cases linked to historic preservation activities. Beginning as early as the 1940s, the “charm” of the Lincoln Park CCA as a pre-automobile, formerly working class neighborhood was promoted through a variety of community efforts centered on neighborhoods near the lakeshore and namesake public park. The first local group within the Lincoln Park CCA to actively promote the area was the Old Town Triangle Association. Founded in 1948, this organization was typical of grassroots groups in the Saul Alinsky tradition of community activism with local residents who organized to address a specific community concern besetting the neighborhood. Other neighborhood associations soon followed, among them the Sheffield Neighborhood Association (1955) and the RANCH Triangle Community Conservation Association (1963). In the case of the Old Town Triangle Association, concerns centered on the continued disinvestment, poverty, and population loss within the neighborhood. By the late-1950s, and with increasing stabilization in the neighborhood, the group shifted its 189 focus and worked to prevent the incursion of higher-density developments in the core of Lincoln Park, away from the lake. Ironically, the introduction of high-rise residential blocks had been proffered by Federal and City government planners as the solution to population decline within the neighborhood. Continuing a strategy begun in the 1940s, members of the Old Town Triangle Association and its umbrella organization, the Lincoln Park Conservation Association (LPCA), championed the neighborhood’s historic and aesthetic qualities. These groups were provided with a forum to promote the neighborhood’s qualities through the planning consultation processes that began in 1954, when Lincoln Park was declared a “conservation area” under the 1943 Master Plan of Residential Land Use of Chicago (Hirsch 1983; Seligman 2005; Michael 2007). In 1973, the Historic Preservation committee of the LPCA held its second annual preservation conference. “Preservation Today” was the successor to the inaugural conference, “Preservation for Tomorrow.” The goals of the conference as articulated by Maurice Forkert, general chairman of the committee, reveal the neighborhood organization’s role as both a promoter of preservation and protector of the existing character of Lincoln Park: The purpose of the Conference…is to keep the Lincoln Park neighborhood better informed about future developments aimed to protect the area against adverse intrusions and also maintaining the values of restoration efforts to buildings in the area that have been and will continue to be made (Lincoln Park Conservation Association 1973). “Adverse intrusions,” in this context, signified buildings that were out of character with the existing turn-of-the-century architecture—high-rises, primarily, that threatened the small-scale character of the neighborhood’s interior. 190 Additional promotion of the Lincoln Park and its historic qualities involved holding occasional walking, garden, and house tours, the mounting of an annual art fair that capitalized on the small, bohemian arts community that had developed during the interwar years, as well as the publishing of a variety of literature (such as walking tours) that highlighted the architecture, gardens, and history of the neighborhood. Gardens and open space interspersed with small-scale historic buildings became an essential part of mythos of Lincoln Park. One resident noted this explicitly: ’Another neat thing about this neighborhood is the fact we have space,’ he says, pointing to a garden along Lincoln Park West. ‘You look right here and you see an open area, a garden. Now you can imagine if they filled up the lot with a building’ (Osran and Reimann 1989). The objective of the Old Town Triangle Association and other community groups was to use the existing fabric of the neighborhoods to carve out a stable niche for Lincoln Park given the physical and social changes cascading through Chicago. To these ends, Old Town Triangle Association specifically promoted its corner Lincoln Park as a discrete neighborhood from the modernist high-rise areas along the lake and from Old Town to the south, with its large African American population, as well as Hispanic neighborhoods to the west. 5.3 Population and Housing Changes Demographic, socioeconomic, and housing changes that are consistent with gentrification in Lincoln Park are readily apparent in the census data over the period from 1970 through 2000. [Table 5.3]. 191 Area Pop. Fam. Inc. Families Poverty Professionals White* Black* Hispanic* -33.53 Per Capita Income 795.37 Case study CCA Cluster City 372.62 -32.67 -85.09 712.08 9.47 -8.72 -24.69 -4.79 -16.05 -14.39 253.01 133.88 34.35 199.14 70.99 4.04 -27.31 -34.47 -23.88 -80.45 -62.39 -17.74 166.39 154.43 63.82 -0.85 -15.72 -45.45 -1.95 3.53 -3.50 -9.51 0.73 202.97 Table 5.3 : Percent change in key demographic variables in Lincoln Park case study and aggregated for the Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (percent change unless noted), 1970-2000. *=’change in the percent of.’ Between 1970 and 2000, the population of the Lincoln Park case study tract had contracted by over 30%, much more than the greater Lincoln Park CCA (nearly 5%), the cluster (16%), or the city as a whole (over 14%). Transformations in the racial and ethnic makeup of the Lincoln Park case study are consistent with gentrification and displacement. At 9.47%, the white share of the case study area grew at a much greater rate than that of the CCA, cluster, and city, which all lost a share of their white population. The decrease in black population of 8.72% in the case study surpassed the meager losses of the CCA (nearly 2%) and city (3.5%). Cluster-wide the black population increased by over 3%. The Hispanic population in the case study tract, mainly Puerto Rican, shows a dramatic decline of nearly 25% that far exceeds the losses in the CCA (9.5%). It also stands in contrast to the modest cluster-wide gains of under 1% and dramatic citywide gains of over 200%. Many of the Puerto Ricans displaced in the 1960s through the early-1980s from the central and western parts of the Lincoln Park CCA, including those from the case study neighborhood, are thought to have migrated to the West Town CCA, including Wicker Park, and into other more affordable neighborhoods. Ultimately, many Hispanics were displaced again as subsequent waves of gentrification flowed into these neighborhoods over the next decade (Betancur 2002). 192 Moving beyond race, professionals had, by 1970, already settled parts of the Lincoln Park CCA, primarily the Old Town Triangle neighborhood and areas abutting the park. Interior tracts like the case study neighborhood followed in the 1970s. Increases in the professional population in the case study was nearly double that of the CCA and far surpassed that of the cluster and the city as a whole. The increase in per capita income and decrease in poverty in the tract are both consistent with this professionalization. The number of families consistently declines across all four scales. The remaining families all saw increases in income; however, those increases diminishment steadily as the geographic scale increases. In the context of the case study, this suggests a process of stabilization in a progressively “tamed” neighborhood, which encourages families to relocate there and existing residents to opt to have children. The detailed data included in the tables below [Tables 5.4-5.8] shed additional light on the changing demographics and housing at the scale of the case study tract, Lincoln Park CCA, cluster, and city over the period beginning in 1970 and ending in 2000. One of the essential indicators of gentrification is, of course, income (Galster and Peacock 1986; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Wyly and Hammel 1998; Podagrosi and Vojnovic 2008). Per capita income in the case study jumps by nearly 800%, from one of the lowest tracts in the CCA to one of the highest, and by 2000 is well above the CCA, cluster, and city means. Family income during this period is also grows much faster than the CCA, cluster, and city as a whole [Table 5.4]. 193 Area Case study CCA mean Cluster mean City mean Per Capita Income (1970) $9,624 $18,279 $16,819 $14,804 Per Capita Income (2000) Per Capita Income Change Family Income (1970) Family Income (2000) Family Income Change $86,174 $64,527 $39,578 $19,912 795.37% 253.01% 133.88% 34.51% $33,123 $45,808 $44,701 $44,907 $156,551 $137,030 $76,910 $46,221 372.62% 199.19% 72.05% 2.92% Table 5.4: Per Capita Income and Family Income in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. (Values adjusted for inflation.) Across these values, the Lincoln Park CCA and case study tract far surpass those of the city for the year 2000 and reveal with clarity Lincoln Park’s upper class status in Chicago at the close of the 20th century. What was, in 1970, a tract of residents of modest income had been transformed, by 2000, into an enclave for wealthy Chicagoans—among the wealthiest in the city. Related to changes in income, the case study, CCA, and cluster have all professionalized and shed residents engaged in manufacturing at a rate greater than that of the city as a whole [Table 5.5]. However, the case study tract has shown a markedly greater change in this respect: a 712% increase in professionals and a decline of nearly 68% for those employed in traditional manufacturing. Gains in the professionals at the other geographic scales are considerably less dramatic, while decreases in manufacturing are consistently within ten percentage points of each other. Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Professionals (1970) 149 11,142 62,821 246,725 Professionals (2000) 1,210 29,681 159,836 404,192 Professionals Change 712.08% 166.38% 154.43% 68.82% Manufacturers (1970) 324 8,303 64,687 397,593 Manufacturers (2000) 104 2,610 20,655 158,254 Manufacturers Change -67.9% -68.56% -68.06% -60.19% Table 5.5: Professionals and Manufacturers in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. 194 Poverty among families decreased across Chicago as a whole in the final three decades of the 20th century [Table 5.6]. Yet, the case study, Lincoln Park CCA, and cluster each saw more pronounced declines. Changes in the number of residents on public assistance income (PAI) tells a slightly different story. The number of PAI recipients declined within the case study tract (by 100%), in the CCA, and in the cluster. However, the number grows in the city as a whole. As high-income professionals move to Lincoln Park and drive up demand for high-end housing and services, the poor and those on welfare are displaced elsewhere. The “deconversion” of multi-unit buildings into buildings with fewer units exacerbates this problem of affordable housing. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Families in Poverty (1970) 228 2,297 19,412 128,257 Families in Poverty (2000) 34 449 7,301 105,509 Families in Poverty Change -85.09% -80.45% -62.39% -17.73% PAI Households (1970) PAI Households (2000) PAI Households Change 105 821 7,675 49,517 0 434 5,825 72,877 -100% -47.13% -24.10% 47.17% Table 5.6: Families in Poverty and Public Assistance Income (PAI) Households in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. The trends seen in the income, employment, and poverty variables over the 1970-2000 period continue with rent and housing value data [Table 5.7]. Tract/ Area Median Gross Rent (1970) Median Gross Rent (2000) Median Gross Rent Change Case study CCA mean Cluster mean City mean $468 $536 $513 $545 $1,102 $970 $790 $612 135.66% 80.97% 53.99% 13.08% Median Value Owner-Occ. Housing (1970) $59,020 $107,643 $93,146 $86,021 Median Value Owner-Occ. Housing (2000) $448,200 $393,280 $282,912 $164,525 Median Value Owner-Occ. Housing Change 659.40% 265.36% 203.72% 91.26% Table 5.7: Median Gross Monthly Rent and Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in the Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. (Values adjusted for inflation.) While median gross rents in the Lincoln Park CCA and cluster are approximately on par with the city as a whole, those in the case study neighborhood are somewhat 195 lower—at least in 1970. Change in median rents between 1970 and 2000 tells a different story, one of Lincoln Park’s rapid ascent. Rents expanded by nearly 81% in the CCA and 54% in the cluster, while Chicago-wide the increase was only a comparatively meager 13%. In contrast, rents in the case study increase by 135%—ten times that of the city as a whole. A similar trend is observable in housing values. Link rent, housing values in the case study were significantly lower than those of the CCA, cluster, and city. However, an increase of 659% between 1970 and 2000 inverts this: the case study now has the highest values of the four geographic scales. So dramatic were the increases in Lincoln Park’s housing values that the local newspapers devoted entire articles to the subject (Hausner 1987). What these values reveal is a CCA—and within it, the Lincoln Park tract in particular—that is increasingly home to a financially elite population that can afford to pay inflated rents and premium housing. The data showing changes in the number of total housing units and vacant housing units reveal several interesting phenomena [Table 5.8]. First, while the number of housing units citywide and in the case study tract have declined, the Lincoln Park CCA and cluster both have gained units. This growth was concentrated in several peripheral tracts in which in-fill housing was built en masse (for example, tract 706 near the northwest corner of the CCA) or where residential high-rises were erected (tract 715 at the CCA’s southeast corner, adjacent to the lake). Changes in the number of housing units notwithstanding, the case study, CCA, and cluster all saw pronounced declines in the amount of vacant housing. This suggests that demand for these areas has increased over the thirty-year target period. The city as a whole, however, saw a 28% increase in vacant units. This probably reflects two oppositional trends: the 196 abandonment of older units and unfilled, newly constructed units that were awaiting tenants at the time the census was taken. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Housing Units (1970) 1,483 33,049 242,050 1,206,730 Housing Units (2000) 1,446 37,398 252,797 1,144,103 Housing Units Change -2.49% 13.15% 4.44% -5.18% Vacant Units (1970) Vacant Units (2000) 169 3,969 22,297 70,347 60 1,624 15,424 90,339 Vacant Units Change -64.50% -59.08% -30.82% 28.41% Table 5.8: Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. (Values adjusted for inflation.) Finally, data describing housing tenure reveals how the case study neighborhood and CCA experienced explosive rates of homeownership, much greater than those of the cluster or city as a whole [Table 5.9]. Yet, while renter-occupied units decreased in at all four geographic scales, the city outpaced both the CCA and cluster. The number of rentals in the case study neighborhood contracted by over 40%. Taken with the increase in homeownership rates, it is clear that the case study neighborhood is increasingly seen as a place not only for investment in real estate, but as a place to live. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total OwnerOccupied (1970) 200 4,001 35,946 396,104 OwnerOccupied (2000) 734 14,342 85,914 460,755 OwnerOccupied Change 267.0% 258.46% 50.56% 16.32% RenterOccupied (1970) 1,114 25,072 183,598 739,844 RenterOccupied (2000) 652 21,432 151,459 593,011 RenterOccupied Change -41.47% -14.51% -17.51% -19.84% Table 5.9: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Lincoln Park case study, Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (values and percent change), 1970-2000. 5.4 Lincoln Park Case Study Census tract 718 in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, within the Lincoln Park CCA, is the first case study neighborhood [Figure 5.7]. The Sheffield Historic District spans roughly the northern half of the tract. Most buildings in the tract date from before World War II and many from before 1900. The exception is the tract’s southeast quadrant in the area bordered by West Willow Street, North Larrabee Street, West North Avenue, 197 and North Orchard Street. This pocket was developed in the late-1970s and early-1980s as high-end townhouse residences, condominiums, and cooperative condominiums. In 1970, tract 718 was part of a three-tract cluster in Lincoln Park’s southwest corner that lagged behind the rest of the CCA in terms of capital reinvestment. However, mounting incomes, housing values, and other prosperity indicators over the next three decades reveal how this pocket eventually caught up with the rest of the gentrifying CCA. Changes in the demographic makeup of this small cluster also suggest a process of displacement at work. Figure 5.7: Census tract 718, Lincoln Park CCA. The tables below [Tables 5.10-5.14] capture fluctuations in the processes of gentrification and displacement on a decade-by-decade basis within the Lincoln Park neighborhood. Perhaps the most significant decade of change in Lincoln Park was the 1970s. Between 1970 and 1980, the tract saw precipitous declines in population across all races. One-half of all whites and two-thirds of Hispanics left the tract; only one-fifth of 198 blacks left. The Hispanic population of Lincoln Park—concentrated in the CCA’s southwest corner, including census tract 718—mounted a campaign beginning in the late-1960s and continuing into the early-1980s, to counteract displacement. Activist groups like the Spanish-American Federation of Lincoln Park and the controversial militant group, the Young Lords, rallied to oppose the city’s redevelopment policies, as expressed in the Lincoln Park Conservation Plan, and its failure to adequately address affordable housing (Anonymous 1966; Padilla 1987; Betancur 1996; Betancur 2002; Judson 2003). The significant decline in the Hispanic population in the 1970s and into the 1980s suggests that this struggle was in vain. During this time, the population become more educated and professionalized. The 1970s witnessed a pronounced increase of collegeeducated residents and professionals in the Lincoln Park case study tract. This was accompanied by a decrease in residents employed in manufacturing. With this change in sectoral employment came a rise in per capita income and family income, as well as a decline in poverty among families. The number of housing units declined slightly. Median home values spiked by nearly 360% during the 1970s— the sharpest growth in the thirty-year period. Rents increased as well, but by a far less significant amount. Though the total number of housing units declined, the number of vacant units also increased by nearly one-third. This reflects not new construction, but the undesirability of existing and declining housing stock in the case study tract, which was still in transition during the 1970s. The share of owner-occupied housing units also grew at the expense of rental units. 199 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 White -1,685 931 13 White % -56.02 .70 .01 Black -224 -289 -78 Black % -21.79 -35.95 -15.15 Hispanic -821 -249 -10 Hispanic % -71.95 -77.81 -14.08 Table 5.10: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Race (absolute and percent change). 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 College Grads. 514 737 212 College Grads. % 356.94 112.01 15.20 Professionals 475 381 205 Professionals % 318.79 61.06 20.40 Manufacturers -94 -136 10 Manufacturers % -29.01 -59.13 10.64 Table 5.11: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Education and Employment Characteristics (absolute and percent change). 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Per Capita Income $15,073 $31,971 $29,505 Per Capita Income % 156.61% 129.45% 52.07% Family Income $17,256 $73,259 $32,912 Family Income % 52.10% 145.41% 26.62% Poverty Poverty % -111 -88 5 -48.68 -75.21 17.24 Table 5.12: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Income and Poverty (absolute and percent change). Total Units 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 -124 184 -97 Total Units % -.08 .14 -.06 Median Value $212,075 $127,019 $50,086 Median Value % 359.33 46.85 12.58 Gross Rent 50 371 214 Gross Rent % 10.68 71.66 24.04 Table 5.13: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Units, Median Value, and Gross Rent (absolute and percent change). 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Owner Housing Units 103 379 52 Owner Housing Units % 51.50 125.08 7.62 Renter Housing Units -276 -142 -44 Renter Housing Units % -24.78 -16.95 -6.32 Vacant Units Vacant Units % 46 -50 -105 27.22 -23.26 -63.64 Table 5.14: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Tenure (absolute and percent change). By the 1980s, some of the explosive growth of the 1970s had cooled in many key demographic areas while other areas showed strong increases. The white population in the Lincoln Park case study tract rebounded while the black and Hispanic decreases continued with intensity. The increase in college graduates and professionals continued the trend of the 1970s, albeit more slowly. The number of residents employed in 200 manufacturing declined steeply. Per capita income increased in the 1980s, but more slowly than before. Family income showed a significant increase when compared to that of the 1970s. This likely reflects the solidification of a tract that was, by the 1980s, increasingly seen as “safe” for families, particularly those with higher incomes. Poverty in the Lincoln Park case study tract also decreased at an accelerated rate in the 1980s. In terms of housing, the number of available units increased slightly. Median housing unit values also increased in the 1980s, but more slowly than in the 1970s. Increases in rent skyrocketed in the 1980s, particularly when compared with the modest increases of the 1970s. Both the number of rental units and number of vacant units declined in the 1980s, but the number of owner-occupied units increased three-fold from that of the previous decade. Finally, data from the 1990s show that white growth, as well as black and Hispanic decline, have all slowed in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. So, too, has the trend in professionalization and education. However, the 10.6% increase in the number of residents employed in manufacturing reverses the losses of nearly 60% in this job sector during the 1980s. The source of this growth is not readily interpretable, but it probably reflects light manufacturing and small-scale artisan work. Per capita and family income both continue to increase, but more slowly than they had in the 1970s and 1980s. The 1990s also saw a slight increase in poverty. This may reflect increases in the cost of living in Lincoln Park and structural changes in families living at the case study neighborhood’s western edge. By 2000, most of Lincoln Park had experienced at least one wave of gentrification. Yet, as will be shown later in this chapter, the gentrification process continues into the 21st century. It reworks parts of Lincoln Park that had already experienced earlier waves of social and physical upgrading. Viewed in 201 2014, the neighborhood is an architectural palimpsest with many overlapping “layers” of upgrading readily visible. The Lincoln Park case study represents the spillover of earlier gentrification that began tentatively in the 1950s and exploded during the 1960s and 1970s, during the height of urban renewal and prior to the existence of mainstream governmental historic preservation programs and initiatives. The process of gentrification began near the eastern (lakefront) portions of the Lincoln Park CCA that Fidel describes as “status persistence” areas, high-status and amenity-rich areas that never declined to the degree that the core of Lincoln Park had in the previous fifty years (Fidel 1992, p. 146). This is an area that also benefitted from the locational advantages provided by transportation corridors and access to the Loop (Yeates 1965). From there, gentrification spread west, with minimal opposition, into the CCA’s interior—the case study neighborhood included. The local newspaper captured this sense in a 1967 article entitled “Some See Old Town Becoming Rich Man’s Quarter.” The article quotes George Stone, a local planning official, who predicts that the eastern parts of Lincoln Park might become havens for the rich, thereby forcing lower-class newcomers westward, from Old Town and areas near the lakefront to the interior of the CCA, near the local university: “In years past, young couples scraped money together and bought a house or apartment building and fixed it up. The young couple of today is [moving] near DePaul University in the Sheffield community, not Old Town” (Gill 1967, p. B1). Twenty years later, in 1987, the New York Times noted the irony of gentrification in the DePaul neighborhood. The cultural climate and historic environment around the university attracted so much reinvestment that it displaced students, who were priced out of the neighborhood (Wald 1987). The article notes how median housing prices had quadrupled in the previous decade. 202 In 1984, the Chicago Tribune reported that one of the final outposts of affordability could be found at the CCA’s westernmost extent, along the formerly industrial Clybourn Corridor. The article, entitled “Homes of the Past Give Birth to Homes of Future,” quoted a developer with the firm Horowitz-Matthews who justified his interest in the area by noting that “It’s one of the last pockets in greater Lincoln Park that hasn’t been redeveloped” (Wiezorek 1984, p. G12). Lincoln Park serves as the baseline neighborhood for this research. It reveals how gentrification can spread from one part of a neighborhood to another, until entire districts of a city are gentrified. Gentrification moves to areas where the rent gap, as Smith and others conceptualized it (Smith 1979; Clark 1995), offers the greatest promise of economic returns. In Lincoln Park the neighborhoods to the extreme west, away from the lake and closest to the residual industrial areas along the river and in the Clybourn Corridor, were the latest to gentrify [Figures 5.8-5.9]. With its massed upscale home improvement outlets, the Clybourn Corridor has developed into a sort of staging ground for the gentrifiers of Lincoln Park. Suchar distinguishes this area from the residential areas to the east by describing it as a zone of “economic revalorization”: an unadulterated “consumption zone” where free market principles drive redevelopment in a greater degree than possible elsewhere in Lincoln Park, where social considerations impact the redevelopment process (Suchar 2004). 203 Figure 5.8: Lofted former industrial building in the Clybourn Corridor, corner of North Clybourn Avenue and West Wisconsin Street. Source: author. Figure 5.9: New multi-unit residential construction at corner of North Racine Avenue and West Armitage Avenue, off the Clybourn Corridor. Source: author. Lincoln Park makes for a valuable case study for another reason. It reveals the mutable dynamics of gentrification processes, their multiple stages within a single, gentrified neighborhood. In Lincoln Park, successive phases of physical reinvestment and redevelopment are clearly evident in parts of the neighborhood that had experienced earlier rounds of gentrification. This process begins with historic preservation and the rehabilitation of existing buildings, but eventually evolves to include the expansion of these buildings, typically upward, to maximize floor space within the 204 limits proscribed by zoning. The final phase in this process shifts from the reworking of the existing building fabric to the outright demolition of buildings and new construction. This is discussed in detail later in the chapter. This cycle of upgrading reveals how few neighborhoods in a city like Chicago, even previously gentrified ones, are safe from successive waves of intensified gentrification—and with it, displacement. Concerns about this were noted by the Chicago Tribune as early as 1981, in an article entitled “The Eternal Urban Dilemma: ‘Renewal’ Means Removal.” This article is exceptional in that it focuses not on poor residents and the pressures brought about by neighborhood renewal, since the plight of the poor has been more newsworthy than that of the privileged middle class. Rather, the article focuses on Lincoln Park’s “first urban pioneers,” some of whom “suspect that they, too, will be displaced when the empty spaces left by demolition are filled with expensive new construction” (Brotman 1981, p. B2). Although not referred to as “supergentrification,” this article is an early indication that this process may soon be at work in Lincoln Park. 5.5 Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Redevelopment in Lincoln Park Historic preservation as a governmental initiative facilitating redevelopment and gentrification in the Lincoln Park CCA and the Lincoln Park neighborhood is explored in this section of the chapter. Approximately one-quarter of all historic sites in Chicago are located in this CCA, making it by far the city’s highest concentration of historic preservation activity [Figure 5.10]. 205 D X X_ ^X EEEE E EE E EEEEE EE D EEEE D E EEE EE EEEE EEEEEE EEEE E EEEE Y D DDDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDD D D D X X X X ^ National Register Buildings X Tax Assessment Projects Chicago Landmark Buildings Tax Credit Projects D D D D D XD X XXX DE DE DE D DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE E DE DE DE DE DE D D D D D DE DE DE DE DE DE DE D E DE D E D D DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE E DE D D D D DDDD D D DD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDD DDDDD XX X X XX X X Y Y X X Y X Y X X X X X X X X E EEE ^ X YY ´ X X X Y X X E E EEEEEE EE E D E D D E D E X XX XX ^ X X X_ E X X _ Y D X X X X XX X X X X X X XEEEEE E E E E E E EE E EEE E E EEEE EEEEEEEE E EEEEE EE EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E X D D DD D D D D D D DD D D DDDDD D D D D D D D DD D D D D D DD D D D DD DD D D D D D D DD D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D D D D DDDDD DDDD DDDDD D D D D D D D DD DD D D D DD DD D D D D D DD DD D D D D D D DD DD D D D D D D DD D DD D D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDDD D DDDDD X Lincoln Park Case Study - buildings in district D _ Y X X X Chicago Historic Districts E D DD D DD D D D D D D DD DDDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDD D DDDDDDDD DDDD D DD DDDD D DDDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D DDDDDDDD DDDD D DD DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDD D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDDDDDDDD DDD DDDDD D DDDDD DDD DDDD DDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D DD DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D DDDDDDD D DD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D DD D D DDDD D D D DD DD D D D D DDDD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DD D D DDD D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D DDD D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D DDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDD DD DD DDDDDD D DDDD DDD D D D D DD D DD D DDD DDDD DDDDDDDD DDDD DD D D D DD DDDDDDDDD D D DD DD DDDDDD DDD D D D D DD DD DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DD D D D DDD DD DD D D D DD DD D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DDD D DD D D D D D D D D D D DDD D D DDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D D D D D DDD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D DD DD D D D D D D D D D D DD DD D DD DD D D D D D D DD D D D DDDDD D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D DD DDD DDD D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D DD DDD D D D DDD D D D D DDD D D D D D DDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D DD D D DD DD D D DD D D DD D D D D D DD D DD DD D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D DDD D D D DD D DD D D D D DD D D DD D DDD D D D D D DD D D D D DD D D D D D D DDDD DD D D D D D D D DD DD D D D D D D DD DD D D D D DDDDD D D D DDD D DDDDD D DDDD National Register Historic Districts D E E EE EEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E D E E EEEE E D EE E E EE EE E E E E E E E EE E EE E E E E EE EE E E E E E D E E E EEEE E E DE D DEEEEEEEEE EEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE E DDD EEEEEEE E DD EEEEEEEEEE E E E EEEEEEEE D D D DD EEEEEEEE EE EEEEEE E D E D D D E E E E E E E DD D D DDD D D E E E E E E D E EEEE E D D D D EE E EE EE E D D D E D DD E D E E D D E E D D E D D D D E D D E D D E E D D E D E DD DDD E E D D D E EE E D D E E D EEEEEEEEEE D D D D E D E E D D DD DDE D EEE D E D D D E EE DDD DD D E D D E EEEE E D D D D EE EE E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE D D DDDDDDDD D D D D D DD D D D D E EEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE E E E E E E E E E E EE EE D E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E EE E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E EE E E E E E E EEE E E E E E E D E E E E E E EE D E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E D D D D D D D D D D D DDDD D XX DE DE DE E DE DE DE DE DE DE D D X D D D D D XDDDDD DD DD DDDDDDD D D DD D D D D D D DD D D D D D D DDD D D D D D D D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D DD D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D DD D D D D D D D DD D D D _ ^ Y D D D D D D DD DD DD D D DD D D D D D DD D D DD D D DDDDDDDDDDD Legend E E E E E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E EEEEEEEEEEEE EE DDDDDDD D DDDDDDDD D D D D DDDDDDD D D D D D D D D D D DDDD D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D X _ D X E D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D DD E DE DE DE DE DE D DE DE D D E DE D DE DE D E DE DE E DE D E DE D E DE D DE DE E D E E D E D D E D E E D E DD E E D E D D E DE D E DE D E E D E D E D DE E E D D E D E E D E D E D D DD E E DE E D E D E DE DE DE E D E D E D E E D DDE E D D E D E D E D D E E DE D E D E D E D D E E D E D D E E E D D E D E D D E DE E D E E E D D E D D DE DE E D E E D E DE D E E D D E D E D DE D E D DE D D E DE D E E DE DE E DE D E D D E DE D DE DE DE D E DE DE D E DE E DE DE DE E DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE D DE D E D E E D E D D E DE DE E DE DE DE DE DE D E DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE D DE DE D DE DE DE E DDE E D DE E E D DE D E E D DE DE DD DE E DE DE E D E DE D E E D DE E DE DE E DDE E D E DE D E DE D E DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE D DE DE DDE E DE DE DE D E D D E D DE E D D E E D E D DE E E D E D D E D E E D E D E D D E E D D E E D D E E D XX X X X X X X X XX D DE X D E X DE E X X X D E DE E D D E D E DE E D YXX D D E E E E D D E D E DX E D E D DE E E D D E E D D DE E D E D E DD E D E E D X E D DE E D D E D D E D E DE DE E D D E DE D E E X E D E D E DE X XX E D E D D D E D X E D DE E D X D E D E D E E D E X D E E D E D X D E E D DE E E D E DE D X DY D E DE DE DD E E D E E D XED DE DE D DDE DX E E DE DE DE E DE D DE D E DX DE D E DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE E DE DE DE DE D E D E DE D E E D D E E D E D E E D D E E D D E E D D E E D D E D E D E D E D E D E D D E D E E D DE DE E E DE DE X EDEEEDDD EDEDED EEDDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDX D E E D D D E E D E D E D D E D E D DE E D E D DE E E D D E DE E DE E E DD DE D DE D E DE D E D E D DDE E D E D E E D D E E E D D E E D D E D E E D E D E E D D E D E D E E D D E DE D D E E D Y D X Y E DE D E E D D E E D D D E E D E DE D E D E D E D D DD EE E _ D D DD D DD D D DDD D D D X D DE E DE DE DE DE D DE E DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE D DE E DE D E DE DE D - buildings in district COMMUNITY: Y YY YY LINCOLN PARK D D D Figure 5.10: Detail of the Lincoln Park CCA and case study neighborhood showing the distribution of historic sites. Important to this discussion is the role of community organizations in promoting historic preservation in Lincoln Park, initially for its intrinsic worth as an important way to recognize the neighborhood’s history, and later as a saleable commodity—as a way to market the neighborhood and distinguish it from others. Numerous neighborhood groups were established in Lincoln Park following World War II and worked to these ends. Among them were the Old Town Triangle Association, Mid-North Association, RANCH Triangle Association, and Sheffield Neighborhood Association. Each of these volunteer-led groups was concerned chiefly with the promotion of its own corner of Lincoln Park as a vibrant, historic, and livable community at a time when the suburbs were attracting most of the region’s growth. Promotion took many forms: tours of rehabilitated homes, neighborhood walking tours, garden tours, and other low-cost, community-oriented events. The goal of such activity was not simply to promote an appreciation for local history. Rather, as Hurley 206 notes, there was a normative component to such activity, a motivation to tacitly encourage neighborhood residents to undertake improvements, upkeep, and rehabilitation work that would strengthen the neighborhood and its housing values (Hurley 2010). These efforts were captured in a 1979 paean to Lincoln Park and its revival, which was cast the resilient neighborhood as the vestige of a historically “true” Chicago, one that was stable, middle class, and (presumably) white14: Next to a large lakefront park on the east, and some still badly deteriorated communities to the west, it has survived the exodus of the middle class from the city in the 1950s, the urban renewal destruction of the 1960s, and now the massive new-development activity of the 1970s. This small band of Lincoln Park neighborhoods not only symbolizes the success of longevity of nineteenth-century homes, they are also the living memorial to the true, historic identity of the city of Chicago (Reed 1979, p. 35). Historic preservation played an evolving role in the redevelopment of Lincoln Park from the late-1960s onward that mirrored trends seen in historic neighborhoods nationwide. As described in chapter 4, early interest in preservation was antiquarian in nature and focused on the historic homes of Chicago’s Brahmin and business elites (Thalia 1952; Bluestone 1994). These were few in number but tended to be large in terms of visual impact [Figure 5.11]. This interest in individual landmarks gradually broadened to encompass entire groups of buildings, or historic districts. Support for, and promotion of, a collective historic site like a district was best served by community organizations with broad interests in a neighborhood. Neighborhood groups like those in Lincoln Park easily incorporated preservation into their working mandates and 14 Elsewhere in this volume the author directly equates racial transition, and not changing socioeconomics, with instability, using the historic Pullman neighborhood on Chicago’s south side as an example of white solidity in a sea of black transience and decay. 207 promoted local districts to encourage pride of place and to attract new residents and capital reinvestment. Figure 5.11: Francis J. Dewes House, Chicago. Source: HABS/HAER Collection, Library of Congress. The impact of preservation grew in proportion to the increase in the number and size of historic districts. The Sheffield Historic District, for example, was enlarged no fewer than three times. With this growth, preservation evolved into a planning and land use tool that was used by neighborhood groups to broadly repel “incompatible” largescale developments, both public and private, that were seen as compromising the neighborhood’s historic character. Often this involved the proposal of a high-density modernist housing block for a neighborhood of pre-war, two- and three-story houses (Anonymous 1964; Ziemba 1974). For example, a 27-story high-rise project proposed for the corner of North Wells Street and West North Avenue was described by residents as being emblematic of “the 208 rape of the neighborhood” (Younger 1972, p. N3). In this particular case, one of many chronicled in the local papers in the 1970s and 1980s, the pressure leveraged by the Old Town Triangle Association and local residents derailed the high-rise project. The Chicago Tribune reported in 1974 that the association won its three-year battle yesterday against a developer to prevent the construction of two high-rise apartment buildings at North Avenue and Wells Street, [buildings that local residents criticized as being] out of character with the single-family residential atmosphere of Old Town’s Victorian houses (Ziemba 1974, p. 9). As this example reveals, before the legal framework for historic preservation was in place, residents and neighborhood groups in Lincoln Park argued generally for the protection of the “atmosphere” created by the presence of architecturally or historically significant buildings. In the 1960s, the call to rehabilitate historic buildings was given support through government’s expanded view of urban renewal and how it should proceed in salvageable neighborhoods with little deterioration and blight. This occurred at all levels government with private sector participation, and involved a shift from wholesale demolition and new construction to renewal that relied on a combination of demolition, new construction, and the conservation of old buildings. Neighborhoods that were deteriorated but not beyond the point of stabilization and reuse were now considered assets, and not liabilities to be summarily removed (Condit 1974; Hirsch 1983). Lincoln Park was one such neighborhood. Though historic preservation was not an explicit objective of this evolved view of urban renewal, the shift in focus from demolition to rehabilitation nevertheless conformed, to some extent, to the goals of preservation-minded neighborhood groups and nascent preservationists. A very early article in the Chicago Daily Tribune highlighted the work of the Lincoln Park 209 Conservation Association, which had taken on a formidable goal: to convince conservative planning authorities that “Old Buildings Don’t Have to be Slums” (Anonymous 1954). This became a cornerstone of urban renewal in the Lincoln Park CCA. Dozens of articles appeared in the Chicago Tribune and other local newspapers during the 1950s and through early-1970s as swathes of Lincoln Park were targeted by the Federal government and city for urban renewal involving surgical clearance and rebuilding as well as selective private rehabilitation work (for example, see Linn 1967). As early as 1961, Lincoln Park and neighborhoods of similar vintage and architectural fabric were recognized as “potential Georgetowns” awaiting revival (Anonymous 1961). Like the original Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC, and those of other historic East Coast cities of the time, revitalization in Lincoln Park was to be grounded in the protection and rehabilitation of old buildings that evoked a heavily romanticized, putatively “better,” earlier era. An article in the Chicago Daily Tribune 1961 captured this sentiment. Entitled “Rehabilitation Is Key to Lincoln Park Plan,” the author highlighted a recent house rehabilitation project that involved “modernizing yet retaining charming features of the building such as exterior ornamental stone carvings, interior oak floors, marble fire places, window shutters, high ceilings, and curving bannisters” (Avery 1961, p. 4). Absent from most of these glowing accounts of rehabilitation was mention of the residential displacement that had accompanied it in model gentrified neighborhoods like Georgetown (Newsom 1971). A decade later, with local interest in rehabilitation growing, a coalition of Lincoln Park’s neighborhood groups initiated a series of annual conferences on historic preservation. The first of these evoked the historic quarters of New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, and New York as potential models for Lincoln Park’s rehabilitation-fueled resurgence [Figure 5.12]. 210 Figure 5.12: “Preservation for Tomorrow” conference (1972). Source: DePaul University Special Collections and Archives. The official designation of historic sites in Chicago began in the late 1960s. . The first designation in Lincoln Park occurred in 1973, when the Francis J. Dewes House at 503 West Wrightwood Avenue and Ann Halsted House at 440 Belden Street were listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The baronial Dewes mansion and the more modest Halsted house, designed by the legendary architectural firm of Adler and Sullivan, are typical of early National Register designations that focused on exemplary works of architecture or places associated with significant historical figures or events. 211 Three historic districts were also listed on the National Register during the period from 1970 to 2000 [Figure 5.13]. Two sit completely within the Lincoln Park CCA and one straddles it and the adjacent Lake View CCA to the north. The Sheffield Historic District (listed in 1976; expanded in 1983, 1985, and 1986) and the Old Town Triangle Historic District (listed in 1984) occupy the center and southeast corner of the CCA, respectively. The Sheffield Historic District spans ten census tracts, either in part or in whole, including part of tract 718—the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood. The final historic district, the Lakeview Historic District (listed in 1977), sits primarily in its namesake CCA to the north. Figure 5.13: National Register of Historic Places individual properties and historic districts in Lincoln Park and case study tract, 1970-2000. Approximately the northern half of the Lincoln Park case study tract is covered by the Sheffield Historic District, which extends over much of the center of Lincoln Park. Approximately three hundred “contributing” (that is, historically significant) buildings are included in this district. Together these buildings form—or formed, at the time the first iteration of the district was established in 1976—a unified physical presence in terms of 212 their design and vintage. The National Register nomination for the district praised the ensemble of turn-of-the-century buildings and their ability to evoke a distant past: Its character as a residential neighborhood is interlaced with well-defined shopping streets has come down to us in a relatively pristine condition compared to similar neighborhoods elsewhere in the city… What these factors add up to is a district that is easily interpreted and enjoyed by the average person who can still identify with its century-old middle class urbanistic values. Few other neighborhoods in Chicago have architectural heritage that is so pleasing because it is so consistent in scale, materials, textures, and other spatial relationships. In short, Sheffield is a distinctive historic district because of its original middle class urban character has survived with sufficient impact to enable most of us to find through it a sense of our time and place in history (National Register of Historic Places 1975, 1983, 1985, 1986, n. pag). The listing of the Sheffield Historic District in the National Register was noted with fanfare in a Chicago Tribune article that linked it with Lincoln Park’s burgeoning revitalization. Entitled “Old Neighborhood Gets a People Lift: There Goes the Neighborhood... Revitalized!”, the article situated historic architecture at the crux of the neighborhood’s unprecedented rebirth (Eshbach 1975). The fertile mix of new, young professionals and residual old-timers was deemed responsible for saving a neighborhood that had been given over to blacks and Latinos and further destabilized by the redlining activities of local banks. Of course, Latinos, blacks, and other marginalized groups were the first to be displaced from Lincoln Park during this “rebirth” (Betancur 1996). The City of Chicago listed its first of many local landmarks in the Lincoln Park CCA in the mid-1970s. In 1977, the Chicago City Council, under Mayor Michael A. Bilandic, designated the Old Town Triangle District an official landmark. Bilandic was the successor to Richard J. Daley, who at best tolerated historic preservation so long as it did not interfere with redevelopment plans in the Loop. Daley’s time in office coincided 213 with Chicago’s biggest building boom since the 1920s. In this pro-growth environment, preservation was not an easy sell. As Zukin notes of this period: A major obstacle to the spread of this preservationist philosophy was that it contradicted the logic of real estate developers, who worked on the basis of the axiom 'Tear it down—build it up.' Were old buildings to be preserved for changing uses, instead of demolished and replaced, the developers' profit margins might dwindle to nothing. So historic preservation seemed to threaten the pillars of modern capitalism as well as the burgeoning skyscrapers of the post-World War II building boom" (Zukin 1982, p. 76). The Old Town Triangle District was established away from the skyscrapers of downtown and in a neighborhood encompassing several hundred residential, commercial, and institutional buildings. In a sense, the listing of the district supplemented the commercial and office rebuilding of the Loop by officially sanctioning a residential neighborhood already undergoing revitalization. It provided a convenient residential haven for workers commuting downtown to work and to shop. A solid residential base to support commerce was something that the Loop had long lacked. To bring visibility to this new historic designation in the Old Town Triangle of Lincoln Park, the Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks mounted a commemorative marker in 1977 at the corner of North Wells and West Menominee streets. Such markers, and occasional wall-mounted plaques on houses, are typically the only physical evidence of historic designation and a way to highlight a neighborhood’s individuality and distinguish it from those surrounding. The Old Town Triangle marker’s succinct narrative calls out the humble origins of the neighborhood and its charming simplicity. In a self-congratulatory aside, albeit one that is vaguely articulated, the text also notes how the preservation of Old Town Triangle was “enhanced” through the city’s rehabilitation-oriented urban renewal programs of the 1950s and 1960s: 214 This area was settled in the 1869s by German immigrants whose community life centered around St. Michael’s Church, founded in 1852. Small cottages, larger houses of wood or brick, and narrow, tree-lined streets contribute to the charm of the Old Town Triangle, preserved and enhanced by one of the earliest neighborhood revitalization efforts in the country (Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks 1977). This carefully worded plaque sends a subtle message regarding the fundamental compatibility of historic preservation and urban revitalization. In part, this was a political message from a city administration that was still, in the mid-1970s, somewhat skeptical of preservation’s transformative value; preservation is not celebrated here on its own, but as a component of the larger urban planning process. Yet at the same time, it also reveals city hall’s willingness to acknowledge the wishes of preservation-minded residents and an eagerness to appease the progressively wealthy and white collar base of homeowners in an increasingly stable, upgrading CCA close to downtown. During the 1970s, the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood saw an enormous increase in the population of college graduates (356%) and professionals (318%), with similar increases in per capita income (156%), family income (52%), and housing value (359%). At the same time, there was a corresponding decrease in impoverished residents (48%). Lincoln Park, as evidenced in the case study tract, was a steadily growing political force on the city’s north side. In response to Lincoln Park residents’ wishes, the city landmarked a total of five historic districts and four individual properties within CCA between 1970 and 2000 [Figure 5.14]. While not in the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood per se, these are in direct proximity to it and reveal a broad interest in historic preservation across the CCA. 215 Figure 5.14: City of Chicago individual landmarks and historic districts in Lincoln Park and case study tract, 1970-2000. The designation of historic sites and districts was widely supported by Lincoln Park’s residents and various neighborhood organizations. As the population of the CCA became wealthier it also became easier for these groups to make their wishes known to city hall. However, as discussed in chapter 3, aldermanic support was always an essential ingredient in local land use projects, the designation of historic properties included. Some aldermen questioned historic preservation as an infringement of inviolate private property rights while others objected on less symbolic, more purely administrative grounds—for example, the use of landmarking to “downzone” a neighborhood (Gaul 1985). Two aldermen with wards in the Lincoln Park CCA publically debated this very issue in 1977. Arguing against historic districts, Alderman Bernard Stone (50th ward) attacked Alderman Martin Oberman (43rd ward) for what he perceived as the cynical misappropriation of an otherwise legitimate city program: I think people behind big districts like this are using the landmark (designation) to do something it was never intended to do—downzone… If people are against high-rises and want to downzone an area, they should downzone and not use the landmark bill” (Hinz 1977, n. pag). 216 By the end of the 1970s, these types of objections were all but absent in the local press. Historic preservation had become less of a political lightning rod. This was in large part due to a new Federal program introduced mid-decade that made the ethic of preservation more saleable. Beginning in 1976, income-producing historic buildings listed in the National Register or by the City of Chicago became eligible to participate in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program—that is, the rehabilitation tax credit program. This public financial incentive for private rehabilitation work helped extinguish some opposition to historic preservation. The crux of the program was capital reinvestment in existing historic buildings, something that often made a very dramatic visual statement, particularly in frayed urban neighborhoods. The program featured prominently in local newspaper articles and was aggressively promoted by local neighborhood organizations in Lincoln Park with the support of the City of Chicago, Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, National Park Service, and non-profit National Trust for Historic Preservation. Local banks, architectural firms, and in particular, developers, also supported the program (Gaspar 1977; Anonymous 1982; Anonymous 1982). For example, developer Richard N. Holtzman of the development firm Preservation Chicago, Inc. specialized in rehabilitated historic buildings and called on property owners and community leaders to work together to create additional historic districts (Wiezorek 1984; Anonymous 1987). By 1988 the Chicago Sun-Times noted the “insatiable” demand among Chicago’s developers, both “big-time” and “small-time,” for historic preservation tax credits to defray the costs of rehabilitation work (Cotton 1988). Developers were both responding to and—as Holtzman’s comment above suggests—actively creating demand for historic buildings and neighborhoods. 217 Despite the existence of a large pool of eligible buildings in the Sheffield Historic District, few properties within this district, at least where it overlaps with the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood, used the rehabilitation tax credit program during the period 1970-2000. This was in large part due to the limitation of the program to incomeproducing properties. Lincoln Park’s historic districts are largely, though not exclusively, comprised of owner-occupied residential units and therefore excluded from the program. A commercial property on the National Register that used the rehabilitation tax credit program was the 1887 Victorian-styled Yondorf Block and Hall located at 758 West North Avenue (listed in the National Register in 1984 and landmarked by the City of Chicago in 2001). The aging structure was scheduled for demolition in 1984 (Anonymous 1990; Kerch 1990). Yet by the late-1980s, with many parts of Lincoln Park gentrified or gentrifying, the 285,000-square-foot building underwent a complete rehabilitation supported by historic tax credits. The rehabilitation project was completed in 1992 at a cost of approximately $3,000,000 (Anonymous 1991) [Figure 5.15]. A member of the investment group that owned the building and undertook its rehabilitation expressed his group’s rationale for saving the building, noting its architectural rarity and its potential impact as a commercial and office anchor in the revitalizing, largely residential, Lincoln Park CCA (Ziemba 1989). 218 Figure 5.15: Rehabilitated Yondorf Block and Hall, ca. 2010. Source: Vinci-Hamp Architects, Inc. In 1982, the State of Illinois introduced the Property Tax Assessment Freeze program that was geared to owner-occupied historic houses. Like the Federal tax credit program, this program also encouraged capital reinvestment in building stock. Although the value of this State program was debated in the newspapers as a potential drain on local tax revenues (Storch 1979), it eventually garnered much support among homeowners and entered the canon of redevelopment tools available in Illinois (Guarino 1991). The residential historic districts in Lincoln Park have seen extensive use of this program since its focus is owner-occupied residential properties. Approximately 230 historic houses and condominiums throughout the Lincoln Park CCA have used the program since 1982. The Lincoln Park case study neighborhood has a single example of this from 1992: 1825 North Orchard Street [Figure 5.16]. The approved rehabilitation of this property was approximately $254,400. 219 Figure 5.16: 1825 North Orchard Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Tax assessment freeze project (1992). Source: Cook County Assessor's Office. Beginning in the 1980s and accelerating into the 1990s and 2000s, the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood saw rapid social and physical changes typical of neighborhoods experiencing gentrification. An undercurrent in these changes was the continuous flow of capital into the housing of the neighborhood. The case study exemplifies a three-stage housing transformation cycle articulated well by Suchar in his qualitative study of gentrification (Suchar 2006). This cycle begins with the rehabilitation of historic housing, proceeds to the expansion of existing buildings, and culminates with tear-downs and new construction. The process begins with rehabilitation and stabilization projects of the type that render an older building livable by contemporary standards. The restoration of decorative elements naturally follows these stabilization efforts [Figure 5.17]. This is one of the primary means by which gentrifiers symbolically express their wealth and middle-class tastes (Jager 1986; Suchar 1992). 220 Figure 5.17: 1825 North Orchard Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Source: author. A process of “building-out and up” follows. This involves the densification of lots so as to maximize the usable space allowable under zoning and other land use controls. This stage makes for a variety of unconventional and decidedly un-historical architectural forms that are anathema to historic preservation purists [Figures 5.185.20]. These types of additions would be subjected to municipal oversight in local landmark districts and generally prohibited. However, in an honorific National Register district such as the Sheffield Historic District, such oversight is not required. 221 Figure 5.18: 1959 North Howe Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded in 1983, 1985, and 1986). An example of "façadectomy": the building’s original façade preserved with new construction to the rear. Source: author. 222 Figure 5.19: 1934 North Bissell Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Pre-addition image, ca. 2012. Source: Cook County Assessor's Office. Figure 5.20: 1934 North Bissell Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Example of maximizing floor-space in an existing historic building through the addition of an additional story. Source: author. 223 Finally, beginning in the 1980s and accelerating during the 1990s and 2000s, tear-downs and new infill construction appear in Lincoln Park (Cleaver 1990; Lurz 1999). This is akin to the new-build gentrification activity seen in other cities (Davidson and Lees 2010; Rose 2010; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). The economic rationale behind tear-downs in older, historic neighborhoods has long been acknowledged, even by preservationists. In 1987 Stipe noted that [i]n a bullish market, that is one in which land values are high and rising and where developers are actively searching out new building sites, it is almost inevitable that as soon as the value of any given site equals or exceeds the value of the structure on it, there will be inexorable pressures on the owner to tear the building down and replace it with a more profitable use” (Stipe and Lee 1987, p. 5). In the context of Lincoln Park, this new, “more profitable” construction has often been executed in contemporary styles that make little attempt to fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood [Figure 5.21]. Other newly constructed buildings attempt to assimilate by adopting faux, historicizing forms that may seem to the casual observer appropriately “urban” and “historic” [Figures 5.22-5.23]. Often, however, these forms are historically inappropriate to the age of the neighborhood or to the context of Chicago and the Midwest [Figures 5.24-5.25]. Purists may object to such stylistic intrusions, but Levi has shown that such “fake” architecture is generally found agreeable among members of the public (Levi 2005). 224 Figure 5.21: 1947 North Howe Street (built 1990), located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). New construction in a contemporary style. Source: author. Figure 5.22: 1919 North Howe Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded 1983, 1985, 1986). Demolished ca. 2013. Source: Cook County Assessor's Office. 225 Figure 5.23: 1919 North Howe Street today. New-build construction by BGD&C developers in a historicizing, Second Empire style. Source: author. Figure 5.24: 2030 North Magnolia Avenue (erected 1992) in a neoclassical style. Source: Jameson Sotheby’s International Realty. 226 Figure 5.25: New-build house at 1862 North Dayton Street, in the Mediterranean Revival style (built 1990). Source: author. In Chicago the adoption of such forms were market-driven and were not the result of government mandates on architectural form. This is the case in cities (Lurz 1999) like Santa Fe, with its ordinance-mandated “Pueblo Revival” architectural style and adobe building materials. Infill construction in historic neighborhoods like Lincoln Park seems to reflect the tastes of affluent residents who at once desire density, walkability, and an architecturally rich and diverse environment, yet at the same time demand the space and amenities allowed through new construction. Osran and Reimann deemed this the “sneak development” of Lincoln Park’s historic districts and a means for making an urban neighborhood palatable to suburban consumers. A longstanding Lincoln Park resident and member of the Old Town Triangle Association board captured this sentiment well: People are moving back to the city, but they’re not moving into the city on the city’s own terms. They’re manipulating the environment so they can have the city on their own terms (Osran and Reimann 1989, n. pag). 227 These new residents in Lincoln Park represented a socioeconomically elite class. This caught the attention of Chicago Sun-Times reporters in 1987: “…today only the affluent can afford some of the town houses being built in Lincoln Park, where prices for a two-bedroom, three-story unit may exceed $300,000” [$629,000 in 2014 dollars] (Hausner 1987, p. 16). Similarly, a Chicago Tribune in 1987 described the construction of faux Victorian houses and townhouses geared to the “yuppie market” of Lincoln Park. The buildings were “priced at $525,000-plus” and deemed part of the ongoing “upscale urban renewal” of the neighborhood (Handley 1987, p. B3). The net result of such new construction and rehabilitation was steadily escalating property values and the gradual diminishing of affordable housing in Lincoln Park. Displacement accompanied these changes. Reporting on a 1980 survey published by Advance Mortgage Corporation of Detroit, the New York Times noted how Lincoln Park, much like Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, and various gentrified parts of New York, was steadily losing its poor population through the dual forces of reinvestment and disinvestment. The article noted how capital reinvestment in Lincoln Park’s building stock was taking a toll on certain demographic groups more than others. Citing restored single-family homes that were selling for $500,000, the article noted how reinvestment “also meant replacement of low-income residents, who are often members of minority groups” (Horsley 1980, p. 8). Rehabilitations, building expansions, and tear-downs are all prevalent in the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood and emblematic of ongoing upgrading. Demolition and new construction stand out visually in the neighborhood and are actively and unabashedly promoted by the developers of today [Figure 5.26]. Developers like BGD&C Homes and Savane Properties, and brokerage sites like Teardowns.com (based in suburban Clarendon Hills), are marketing structurally sound and generally 228 well-maintained buildings to upscale homebuyers as tear-downs. Such reworking of the cityscape has occurred across the Lincoln Park CCA and the Sheffield Historic District is no exception. This district is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is not locally landmarked by the City of Chicago. Therefore, there are no police power protections in place to stave off alterations and demolitions that would compromise the historical integrity of the district. Figure 5.26: 1863 North Howe Street, located in the Sheffield Historic District (National Register of Historic Places, listed 1976; expanded in 1983, 1985, and 1986). Marketed by BGD&C developers as a teardown in May 2014. Source: author. The nature of demolition and new construction in Lincoln Park took a radical turn in the 21st century. Since the early 2000s, Chicago has seen an intensification of newbuild construction that is perhaps the best example of super-gentrification in the city. 229 Much of this has been concentrated in the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood. Single properties have given way to urban mansions of gargantuan Gilded Age proportions, the construction of which have required the clearance and reassembly of multiple city lots. Chicago Magazine describes these as “megamansions” (Rodkin 2011). The Lincoln Park case study neighborhood is home to many of these along a city block that Forbes.com described in 2007 as one of most expensive in the United States (Woolsey 2007). Located along North Orchard and North Burling streets between West Armitage Avenue and West Willow Street, this area is home to three of the largest houses in Chicago. Insurance magnate Richard Parrillo’s chateauesque home, with the highest residential property taxes in the Chicago metropolitan area, was reported to have required seven city lots to construct [Figure 5.27]. The nearby home of current United States Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker required five lots, and the home of Sara Crown Star—daughter of an industrialist on Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans—required three. Large homes are still being built in the area (Rodkin 2012), which by the mid-2000s had earned the name “Gazillionaires' Row” (Chandler 2006). 230 Figure 5.27: Parrillo House, 1932 North Burling Street, built 2008. Source: Chicagonow.com. This new environment of megamansions stands out because of the willingness of residents and developers to remake entire sections of residential city blocks with little regard to the greater neighborhood or to what stood on the redeveloped land beforehand. Nevertheless, it simply represents an intensification of a practice seen elsewhere in Lincoln Park [Figure 5.28] and in Chicago in the 1990s. In other parts of Lincoln Park, for example, single buildings have been demolished in large numbers for new construction. The piecing together multiple lots to accommodate the erection of a single megamansion is new, however. 231 Figure 5.28: House at 550 West Dickens Avenue, built 2010. Source: Liederbach & Graham Architects. 5.6 Conclusion In 2005, the local historic preservation non-profit organization, Preservation Chicago, called attention to the historic preservation activities occurring in Lincoln Park. But this was not an attempt to celebrate the successes of preservationists in one of Chicago’s most historically significant neighborhoods. Rather, after years of gradual degradation of the neighborhood’s architectural fabric involving “atrocious, disfiguring alterations” that began as early as the 1970s (Mary C. Means, National Trust for Historic Preservation-Midwest Office, cited in Gapp 1980), the National Register-listed Sheffield Historic District was dubiously highlighted as one of “Chicago’s Seven Most Threatened Buildings” (Preservation Chicago 2005). The district was threatened by a continuous process of gentrification-fueled demolition and new construction that had already, by 2005, severely compromised the neighborhood’s historic integrity. Preservation 232 Chicago’s press release summarized the situation and highlighted the internal conflicts between residents within the neighborhood: As more and more charming and irreplaceable Victorian homes fall to the wrecker ball in one of Chicago’s most intact areas, neighbors have pitted themselves against neighbors in a fight over the historic soul of the neighborhood (Preservation Chicago 2005, n. pag). A contemporaneous study confirmed Preservation Chicago’s claims. It revealed that 20% of all teardown activity in Chicago over the period 2000-2006 occurred in a north-side triangle that included the Lincoln Park, West Town, and Logan Square CCAs—the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood included (Weber, Doussard, Bhatta and McGrath 2006). All three CCAs had been physically and socially transformed by gentrification and associated displacement. The Preservation Chicago press release continued by condemning the district’s two neighborhood groups, the Sheffield Neighborhood Association and the RANCH Triangle Association, for their refusal to advocate on behalf of preservation: “Ironically, both organizations were initially founded as historic preservation organizations in the 1970s [sic.—they were founded in the 1950s], and facilitated the first wave of rehabbing that helped to revitalize the neighborhood” (ibid.). The failure of these community groups to sustain their advocacy work beyond the first wave of revitalization that began in the 1950s reveals an important insight into historic preservation in areas experiencing gentrification—or in the case of Lincoln Park, super-gentrification—and skyrocketing demands for housing. One can surmise that preservation is supported when a neighborhood is deemed “transitional” or at a perceived “tipping point” between revitalization and decay. However, with time, this support either dwindles among residents, as threats to the neighborhood diminish, or 233 there is a shift in preferences: capital reinvestment and redevelopment are favored over preservation. This process is accelerated by the neighborhood’s success as a revalorizing residential enclave, as new residents arrive who were never involved in the original struggle to push the neighborhood beyond that tipping point. As Weber et al. note in their 2006 study of Chicago’s gentrifying CCAs, “escalating land values… provide a central impetus to replace old—and in the eyes of many, ‘‘vintage’’—buildings with newer housing stock” (Weber, Doussard, Bhatta and McGrath 2006, p. 23). In the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood, this process of replacement began almost as soon as the neighborhood was “pacified” by pioneering gentrifiers and accelerated during the 1990s and into the 2000s. 234 Chapter 6: Case Study #2: Sheridan Park (Uptown) For almost 40 years, Uptown has been Chicago's quintessential rundown neighborhood, populated with enough alcoholics, drug addicts, ex-mental patients, welfare families, Third World immigrants and Appalachian Black Lung victims to keep an army of doctors and social workers busy for life. Now the neighborhood is undergoing dramatic change. It has been rediscovered by a new and moneyed crowd. They love the lakefront. They love the short Loop commute. They love, in the words of one young developer, "the absolutely awesome architecture” (McNamee 1987, p. 5). 6.1 Introduction The subject of this case study is census tract 317 in the Uptown CCA. This tract is approximately coterminous with the Sheridan Park neighborhood of Uptown, as well as with the National Register-listed Sheridan Park Historic District. For ease of discussion this case study is referred to simply as “Sheridan Park” [Figure 6.1]. 235 Figure 6.1: Map showing location of Uptown CCA and case study neighborhood. Perhaps more than the other two case study neighborhoods, gentrification in Sheridan Park was shaped by the morphology of the neighborhood and its mixed architectural character of multi-and single-family homes and rental and owner-occupied buildings. Gentrification was driven in part by the availability of financial incentives to 236 rehabilitate historic, income-producing buildings in the Sheridan Park Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1985. The neighborhood reveals how developers have capitalized on the history of a place and its pre-war historic fabric to change the demographic character of what has often been described as a “transitional” urban neighborhood—a savable neighborhood that could tip toward revitalization if appropriately prodded. Among the three case studies, Sheridan Park is most illustrative of how historic preservation policies have encouraged capital reinvestment and displacement. In part, the redevelopment trajectory of Sheridan Park was also shaped by the greater Uptown CCA’s post-war history. In the 1980s Uptown was identified in the protracted Gautreaux court settlement case as a “revitalizing area” that would receive a share of scattered-site public housing units (Hirsch 1983). Uptown was also served by an active base of affordable housing groups that advocated for the area’s needy and dependent residents. It was represented in City Hall by long-serving alderman, Helen Shiller of the 46th Ward, who was strident in her opposition to upscale development projects that would have the potential of dispersing the existing poor population. This combination of forces created a class-based tension in Uptown that persists to this day and has blunted the upgrading efforts of developers who regard Uptown as a potential Lincoln Park. The Chicago Tribune described 1980s Uptown in Marxian terms as a place defined by intense and unconcealed “class struggle” between more affluent new residents (and the developers that courted them) and the existing, poor population (Kass 1987, n. pag). Yet some developers used historic preservation in the service of affordable housing by “piggybacking” various governmental incentives to create belowmarket rate units. For example, Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits were used in 237 conjunction with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and Community Redevelopment Block Grants to reduce overall project costs. In spite of this, the Uptown CCA—and Sheridan Park in particular—has shown demonstrable signs of social and physical upgrading that began in the mid-1980s. Both gentrification and displacement are evident in parts of this north side neighborhood that was once commonly referred to as a “dumping ground” (Pacyga and Skerrett 1986; Pailon 1994) for the poor and mentally handicapped—a legacy visibly expressed in what was once the largest concentration of single-room occupancy (SRO) transient “hotels” in the city. Writing in 2009, Betancur described Uptown as a “middle stage” gentrified neighborhood in transition between a late stage neighborhood like Lincoln Park and early stage Pilsen (Betancur 2011). The period 1970-2000 spans the transition of Uptown, and Sheridan Park in particular, from its early to middle stages of gentrification. Like the previous chapter, this chapter begins with a discussion of the Uptown CCA and the population and housing changes it experienced over the period 1970-2000 that convey a sense of the broader physical and social upgrading underway. Unlike Lincoln Park, Uptown as a whole CCA cannot be characterized as having experienced gentrification. It experienced only pockets of gentrification. Ultimately, the focus of the discussion of gentrification in this chapter is on one of those pockets: Sheridan Park. The in-depth discussion of Sheridan Park pays particular attention to the intersection of historic preservation, gentrification, and displacement within the neighborhood. Sheridan Park and its selfsame historic district are a hub of preservation activity in Uptown and on the city’s north side. Present in the neighborhood are numerous examples of projects that have used public financial incentives that encourage the rehabilitation of historic properties. Both historic preservation tax credit projects and tax assessment freeze projects are concentrated in Sheridan Park. 238 6.2 Uptown CCA The focus of the second case study is census tract 317 in the Uptown CCA. This tract is nearly coterminous with the neighborhood that was called “Heart of Uptown” for most of the 20th century, but is now commonly referred to by its original subdivision name: Sheridan Park. The name Heart of Uptown implies centrality and indeed, this neighborhood sits near the geographic center of the Uptown CCA. The name also suggests that the neighborhood is an economic, social, and cultural center for Uptown’s residents. To understand gentrification in Uptown, it is important to understand broad patterns in the history of the greater CCA and its built environment. Unlike Lincoln Park, it is particularly important to distinguish between the Uptown CCA as a whole and the Sheridan Park neighborhood as a unit within it. The development and redevelopment trajectories of these two areas embody different locational realities and different redevelopment processes. In short: over the period 1970-2000, Sheridan Park shows demonstrable evidence of physical and social upgrading commonly associated with gentrification, while other parts of Uptown do not. This is in large part due to Uptown’s legacy of entrenched poverty, insularity, and its resilience to exogenous change. Gentrification in the Uptown CCA has been slower and more piecemeal than in others parts of Chicago’s north side. In Larry Bennett’s words (and evoking Brian Berry’s famous “islands of renewal in seas of decay”), the Sheridan Park neighborhood had become, by the early 1990s, a “defensible beachhead” forcibly established within Uptown, a place where speculative developers had assembled “enough parcels to form an autonomous island of affluence” and homeowners serially renovated a “six-flat into a posh stockade of opulence amid the devastation” (Bennett 1997, p. 94). A key part of 239 the establishment of this gentrified beachhead was the creation of the Sheridan Park Historic District in the mid-1980s. Uptown is located approximately six miles north of Chicago’s Loop. The eastern edge of the CCA is defined by the northern reaches of Lincoln Park (the public park, not the CCA) and the Montrose Beach and Harbor, which project into Lake Michigan and provide recreational opportunities to the local population. Growth in this area was slow until around 1900, when a railroad station on the Northwestern Elevated line was opened near the corner of North Broadway and West Wilson Avenue. This transportation hub provided a direct link to the Loop and attracted new residential and commercial development. Single-family homes, two-flats, and six-flats were built to the west, in the Sheridan Park subdivision and elsewhere on the CCA’s interior. A significant number of high-rise apartment buildings were erected between Uptown’s major north-south streets and the lakefront, where access was easy to the elevated train. As the 20th century progressed and automobile use increased, North Lake Shore Drive drew downtown to within striking distance of Uptown’s commuters (DeBat 1990). Along with the Hyde Park, Rogers Park, and South Shore CCAs, Uptown has been described as a populous “apartment district” whose growth was shaped by access to these early and mid-century transportation corridors (Keating 2008, p. 81). As of 2014, Uptown’s housing stock is composed primarily of multi-family units [Table 6.1]. The CCA has higher percentages of condominiums and high-density buildings than the city as a whole and far fewer lowdensity buildings and single-family houses. 240 Housing type Single-family house Condominium 2-4 unit building 5-49 unit building 50+ unit building Uptown 2.4% 34.3% 5.5% 23.3% 34.5% Chicago 25.3% 20.2% 27.0% 19.7% 7.8% Table 6.1: Housing Stock in the Uptown CCA and Chicago, 2014. Source: Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. Commercial uses followed the development of residential areas and ran along Uptown’s major streets: North Broadway and North Sheridan Road in the eastern reaches and North Clark Street in the west, as well as along the perpendicular West Lawrence Avenue. By the late 1920s and the onset of the Great Depression most of Uptown had been developed. Until World War II, the neighborhood was solidly middleclass and considered one of the more desirable residential, retail, and commercial neighborhoods on Chicago’s north side. Uptown’s desirability is reflected by its many famous residents. Unlike Lincoln Park and its early industries that were concentrated along the Chicago River, Uptown residents who were engaged in manufacturing likely worked at scattered industries throughout the CAA as well as outside. The neighborhood was also significant in the early decades of the 20th century for a nascent industry found nowhere else in Chicago and few places in the United States: the silent motion picture industry (Pacyga and Skerrett 1986). The film studio Essanay (a name derived from the surnames of its founders, George K. Spoor and Gilbert M. Anderson) established a sprawling studio in the early-1900s at 1333-1345 West Argyle Street, directly north of Saint Boniface Catholic Cemetery. Although the studio closed in 1917 when the film industry decamped for Southern California it nevertheless left an indelible mark on Uptown. The 1908-1915 Essanay Studios building is extant [Figure 6.2] and many of the entertainment venues that followed it to Uptown also remain. These venues helped 241 make Uptown a primary entertainment hub in 1920s Chicago, second only to the Loop (Marciniak 1984). Among these venues were several theaters (the Uptown Theater at 4814 North Broadway, Riviera Theater at 4746 North Broadway, Lakeside Theater at 4730 North Sheridan Road, Aragon Ballroom at 1106 West Lawrence Avenue, and the recently demolished Rainbo Gardens at 4812-4836 North Clark Street) and the Green Mill Cocktail Lounge at 4802 North Broadway, one of Chicago’s oldest jazz houses. Together with more recent establishments (for example, the Black Ensemble Theater at 4450 North Clark Street and the Pegasus Players at 4520 North Beacon Street), Uptown’s historic theaters and performance spaces have been promoted by local boosters as the basis for revitalization efforts that attempt to frame Uptown as the north side’s premier entertainment district. Figure 6.2: Essanay Studio Building (Chicago Landmark, 1996), 1333-45 West Argyle Street, Uptown. Source: City of Chicago. World War II took a toll on Uptown. What had once been a strongly middle-class urban neighborhood had begun to slide. To accommodate wartime workers in Chicago’s 242 industries, large apartments within Uptown’s Winthrop-Kenmore corridor were subdivided to house additional tenants—an undertaking that only served to concentrate population in the CCA, particularly in its eastern sections. Consequently rents dropped, short-term leasing became standard in the area, and landlords began to delay maintenance on their buildings. Many apartment buildings were converted into transient boarding houses or SROs. Following the war, established residents continued their migration out of the eastern parts of Uptown and a transient population, mainly comprised of new migrants to Chicago, filled the resultant void. Among these were southern African Americans and white Appalachians, Native Americans from the Upper Midwest and Oklahoma, and Japanese-Americans displaced from California (Keating 2008). In the 1970s, Uptown’s affordable housing also attracted a disproportionate share of Illinois’s mental health patients after the State began a process of cost-saving deinstitutionalization (Marciniak 1984; Haas, Nyden, Walsh, Benefield and Giangrece 2002). Uptown, and nearby Edgewater, were both labelled “urban psychiatric ghettoes” in the local press (Locin 1978, p. 3). The problem of providing for these populations became apparent early and continues today. As the neighborhood declined over the 1960s and 1970s, arson became commonplace and contributed to housing shortages and the concentration of population in Uptown (Benjamin 1980). Most of this occurred outside of the Sheridan Park neighborhood. During the 1950s and 1960s Uptown’s problems made it a lightning rod for public urban renewal efforts. However, most of these efforts can be characterized as “paper plans” overseen by local councils or commissions that ultimately impacted the neighborhood in limited ways. Many of the plans, including the 1957 General Renewal Plan, involved what became a recurring, two-pronged approach to revitalizing Chicago’s 243 failing neighborhoods: the spot clearance of blighted areas and the targeted rehabilitation of buildings in salvageable neighborhoods (Marciniak 1984; Bennett 1997). A planning report by Jack Meltzer, a consultant who had worked with the South East Chicago Commission on renewal plans for the Hyde Park and Kenwood CCAs on the city’s south side, followed the General Renewal Plan in 1962 (Schwieterman and Caspal 2006). In essence, Meltzer’s plan called for the same approaches as earlier plans: surgical clearance, rehabilitation, and the targeted reduction of population concentrations in Uptown’s eastern sections through the “deconversion” of subdivided housing units in apartment blocks (Bennett 1997). The subsequent Uptown Conservation Plan of 1968 called for similar deconversion work. Yet this plan also offered a novel proposal for helping Uptown’s chronically underemployed population. It recommended that a branch of the City Colleges of Chicago be established somewhere in the Sheridan Park neighborhood to help the local population with vocational training. While demolition and deconversion were the primary vehicles for population reduction in parts of Uptown with concentrations of SROs and multi-unit buildings, a different approach—one requiring less drastic physical intervention—was deemed appropriate for Sheridan Park. This involved the rehabilitation of the neighborhood’s intact single-family houses, condominiums, and multi-unit buildings. The flurry of urban renewal plans in the 1960s created populist backlash among Uptown’s poor and disenfranchised population. Several anti-development groups emerged during this time to advocate for affordable housing. These grass-roots groups clashed openly with pro-development stalwarts like the local chamber of commerce. Among the more important were the Voice of the Poor (later, Voice of the People or VOICE) and the Organization of the NorthEast (ONE). Voice of the Poor is an advocacy 244 group formed in 1968 to protest the demolition of 3,000 units along North Racine Street in Sheridan Park for the construction of Harry S. Truman College, a branch of the City Colleges of Chicago system (Sheppard 1981; Wolff 1987; DeBat 1988; Voice of the People 2014). The college was ultimately built in the 1970s and several hundred families were evicted in the process. As Uptown changed, Voice of the Poor evolved into an affordable housing group with an unabashed anti-gentrification agenda: “With changes in Chicago public housing [and] with the gentrification of neighborhoods like Uptown, VOICE is one of the few organizations addressing the growing lack of affordable housing in this area” (Voice of the People 2014). Founded in 1974, ONE’s early anti-development agenda was similar to that of Voice of the Poor. Ratcliffe described the group’s achievements as “numerous and impressive” (Ratcliffe 1978, p. 59). Affordable housing groups like Voice of the Poor and ONE came about in response to urban renewal plans that involved clearance, rehabilitation, and deconversion. With time, however, their missions evolved as the nature of the threat to Uptown’s housing changed. Slowly in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s, smallscale, private developers—with small firms headed by individuals like Mike and John Paque, Jim Bouma, and William Thompson (Cross 1974)—began to seek out rental properties in neighborhoods like Uptown that were suitable for rehabilitation either as condominiums or as rental apartments. High interest rates limited the amount of new construction to all but the largest development firms in Chicago. Older, more spacious buildings with desirable architectural styles were considered particularly attractive investments. So, too, were neighborhoods like Uptown that also offered reasonably quick commute times to the Loop. A reporter for the Chicago Tribune noted this real estate trend in 1983. 245 An alternative to construction (which is virtually nil because of high interest rates), rehabbed apartments offer Victorian elegance, more space (the usual suburban draw) and access to transportation. Developers have concentrated on Edgewater and Uptown on the North Side, Logan Square and Wicker Park on the Northwest Side, Printers Row in the South Loop and Chicago Heights, a southern suburb, for example (Hirschman 1983, p. F16). As this article suggested, parts of Uptown were earmarked for redevelopment, and small-scale refurbishment in particular, during the early 1980s. This is also the period in which gentrification arose in discussions of Uptown, alternately as an opportunity and as a threat in the neighborhood. In the 1990s and 2000s, the concentration of entertainment venues in Uptown, both historic and new, became the centerpiece for plans to rejuvenate the neighborhood. These plans evoked the 1957 General Urban Renewal Plan, which aimed to stabilize businesses in Uptown’s “downtown” at North Broadway and West Lawrence Avenue as catalyst for neighborhood revitalization (Bennett 1997). Dubbed the “Uptown Entertainment District,” the current plan is being forwarded by local business organizations like Uptown United with support from city hall. Neighborhood branding, the relaxation of zoning and licensing, and an infusion of public money through a local tax increment financing (TIF) district are proposed to return Uptown’s former fashionable status; to transform it into “Chicago’s Most Entertaining Neighborhood” (Uptown United 2012). The foundation on which this “theming” effort is to be built is the neighborhood’s unique history: it’s historical significance as an entertainment district and the numerous historic buildings—theaters, primarily—that still dot the neighborhood today and create a tangible link to that golden era. Local developers who currently rehabilitate buildings in Uptown are capitalizing on this proposal. One upscale condominium developer, FLATS Chicago, promotes its work as helping Uptown to get “back to its roots as a 246 neighborhood with a historical legacy as Chicago’s premier entertainment district” (FLATS Chicago 2014). 6.3 Population and Housing Changes Demographic, socioeconomic, and housing changes consistent with gentrification are apparent in the 1970-2000 census data for Sheridan Park [Tables 6.2-6.8]. However, the changes reveal a different pattern than that of Lincoln Park, one that is more tenuous and reflective of a neighborhood gentrifying in fits and bounds and with determined local opposition. This neighborhood provides an illustrative case of slow gentrification. An architect and planner with the Uptown Chamber of Commerce alluded to the sluggish nature of redevelopment and change in a Chicago Tribune article from 1988: “What’s happening in Uptown is a qualitative-not quantitative-type of growth,” says Jim Ohle, a local architect and director of long-range planning for the Uptown Chamber of Commerce. “It’s not booming to the point where it`s going to bust. It’s a slow and steady business growth that has accelerated but is also responsive to the diversity of the community” (Sulski 1988, n. pag). Whether private upgrading was truly as “responsive” to the diverse community—a veiled reference to Uptown’s poor, elderly, and minority populations—as claimed by the Chamber of Commerce was a matter debated by other groups active in the neighborhood during this period. In general, Sheridan Park saw modest changes in the variables that suggest the presence of gentrification [Table 6.2]. Overall population in the study contracted at a rate approximately double that of the CCA, cluster, and city. Increases in per capita income are greater in the case study than in the CCA and city, but lower than the cluster. Moreover, family income actually shows a decline of nearly 4%--the only such decrease among the four spatial units. Decline in the number of families is greater in the case 247 study than in the CCA, cluster, and city. The decline in the number of families in the case study neighborhood living in poverty is on par with the cluster, but the decline is much greater than at the level of the CCA and city. The Sheridan Park case study professionalized at a much greater rate than CCA, cluster, or city. Most striking, perhaps, are the racial changes in the Sheridan Park neighborhood. While Lincoln Park showed a pattern of racial change familiar to many gentrifying neighborhoods—white population on the rise, black and Hispanic populations on the decline—Sheridan Park reveals the opposite. Here, the white population declines at a rate commensurate with the city while the black and Hispanic population both increase. In the case of blacks, the increase in the neighborhood is at a greater rate than the city, which is actually losing the black population. The Hispanic population also increases but at a rate that is a tenth of that of the city as a whole. Nevertheless, this would suggest that gentrification in the Sheridan Park case study neighborhood is not driven completely by one race, but rather a heterogeneous gentrifying class unified by other factors—socioeconomics and employment characteristics being perhaps the most significant. Area Pop. Fam. Inc. Families Poverty Professionals White* Black* Hispanic* -31.36 Per Capita Income 69.17 Case study CCA Cluster City -3.99 -45.99 -61.93 281.74 -42.05 20.84 22.90 -15.08 -16.05 -14.39 51.10 133.88 34.51 7.71 72.05 2.92 -33.59 -34.47 -23.88 -28.68 -62.39 -17.74 99.91 154.43 63.82 -36.18 -15.72 -45.45 17.45 3.53 -3.50 6.64 0.73 202.97 Table 6.2: Percent change in key demographic variables in Sheridan Park case study tract and aggregated for the Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (percent change unless noted), 1970-2000. *=’change in the percent of.’ The detailed data included in the tables below [Tables 6.3-6.8] reveal the changing demographics and housing in Sheridan Park, in the Uptown CCA, and in Chicago for the period 1970-2000. Per capita income in Sheridan Park jumps by nearly 70% over this period, from one of the lowest census tracts in the CCA to one of the 248 highest [Table 6.3]. This jump, while greater than those of the CCA and city, is still significantly lower than that of the cluster at 133%. Family income in the case study show a slight decline of some 4% over the thirty-year period. The CCA and city—and in particular, the cluster—all showed growth in this area. Tract/ Area Case study CCA mean Cluster mean City mean Per Capita Income (1970) $12,938 $16,537 $16,819 $14,804 Per Capita Income (2000) Per Capita Income Change Family Income (1970) Family Income (2000) Family Income Change $21,888 $24,986 $39,578 $19,912 69.17% 51.10% 133.88% 34.51% $34,971 $40,629 $44,701 $44,907 $33,576 $43,763 $76,910 $46,221 -3.99% 7.71% 72.05% 2.92% Table 6.3: Per Capita Income and Family Income in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. In terms of change in percentage of professionals living in Sheridan Park, the increase of 281% dwarfs that of the CCA, cluster, and city [Table 6.4]. The growth in professionals is accompanied by a loss in residents engaged in manufacturing, which is greater than that of the CCA, cluster, and city. In fact, the loss of 75% of the manufacturing jobs in Uptown surpasses that of the other two case study neighborhoods. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Professionals (1970) 390 6,896 62,821 246,725 Professionals (2000) 1,489 13,786 159,836 404,192 Professionals Change 281.79% 99.91% 154.43% 68.82% Manufacturers (1970) 1,494 8,643 64,687 397,593 Manufacturers (2000) 367 2,821 20,655 158,254 Manufacturers Change -75.43% -67.36% -68.06% -60.19% Table 6.4: Professionals and Manufacturers in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. The number of impoverished families living in Sheridan Park declined by nearly 62% as compared with the more modest declines in the Uptown CCA and citywide [Table 6.5]. Decline in the case study are comparable to that of the cluster. While the 249 number of residents on welfare grew in the CCA and city, Sheridan Park and the cluster both saw significant declines of 17% and 24%, respectively. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Families in Poverty (1970) 599 3,442 19,412 128,257 Families in Poverty (2000) 228 2,455 7,301 105,509 Families in Poverty Change -61.93% -28.68% -62.39% -17.73% PAI Households (1970) PAI Households (2000) 321 1,767 7,675 49,517 266 2,306 5,825 72,877 PAI Households Change -17.13% 30.50% -24.10% 47.17% Table 6.5: Families in Poverty and Public Assistance Income (PAI) Households in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. Gross rent in Sheridan Park showed only modest increases when compared to the CCA and city as a whole [Table 6.6]. Compared with the cluster, the increase is nominal. However, the value of owner-occupied housing in Sheridan Park increased dramatically by 113%--higher than the CCA and city averages but less than that of the cluster. The CCA presented much smaller increases of 54%, approximately half that of the city as a whole at 91%. The cluster experienced the greatest increase of over 200%. Tract/ Area Median Gross Rent (1970) Median Gross Rent (2000) Median Gross Rent Change Case study CCA mean Cluster mean City mean $481 $536 $513 $545 $522 $590 $790 $612 8.47% 9.99% 53.99% 13.08% Median Value Owner-Occ. Housing (1970) $105,782 $128,977 $93,146 $86,021 Median Value Owner-Occ. Housing (2000) $226,200 $198,867 $282,912 $164,525 Median Value Owner-Occ. Housing Change 113.84% 54.19% 203.72% 91.26% Table 6.6: Median Gross Monthly Rent and Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in the Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. The total number of housing units in Sheridan Park decreased at a greater rate than both the CCA and the city [Table 6.7]. The cluster showed a modest growth of nearly 4.5%. This likely reflects several factors. The efforts to “deconvert” units that were previously subdivided, during the 1940s and 1950s, is one factor. The other is demolition activity and the loss of units to arson during a period when the nearby 250 Winthrop-Kenmore corridor was known as “Arson Alley” (Edwards 1990, n. pag). The decrease in vacant units in Sheridan Park is on par with the CCA and reflects increased demand in the face of decreased availability. This stands in stark contrast to Chicago as a whole with its increasingly vacant housing stock. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Housing Units (1970) 4,913 36,864 242,050 1,206,730 Housing Units (2000) 3,844 32,440 252,797 1,144,103 Housing Units Change -21.76% -12.00% 4.44% -5.18% Vacant Units (1970) Vacant Units (2000) 470 3,743 22,297 70,347 230 1,807 15,424 90,339 Vacant Units Change -51.06% -51.72% -30.82% 28.41% Table 6.7: Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. Housing tenure data reveals a general trend towards greater homeownership in the city and in Uptown generally [Table 6.8]. Change in the CCA (304%) is greater than that of Sheridan Park (250%); change in each is far greater than in the cluster and in the city as a whole. The number of renter-occupied units in Sheridan Park declines at a greater rate than the CCA, cluster, and city. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total OwnerOccupied (1970) 203 1,816 35,946 396,104 OwnerOccupied (2000) 712 7,354 85,914 460,755 OwnerOccupied Change 250.74% 304.96% 50.56% 16.32% RenterOccupied (1970) 4,240 31,300 183,598 739,844 RenterOccupied (2000) 2,902 23,279 151,459 593,011 RenterOccupied Change -31.56% -25.63% -17.51% -19.84% Table 6.8: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. 6.4 Sheridan Park Case Study Sheridan Park (census tract 317) serves as the second case study neighborhood in this dissertation. Located near the center of the Uptown CCA [Figure 6.3], this twenty-block neighborhood is bounded by three residential streets (West Lawrence Avenue, North Racine Avenue, West Montrose Avenue) and one commercial (North Clark Street). West Wilson Avenue bisects the neighborhood and is mixed residential 251 and commercial in character. Uptown’s other major commercial thoroughfares are located to the immediate east of Sheridan Park. North Broadway cuts a diagonal northwest-to-southeast swath through Uptown. Adjacent to Broadway is a section of the Winthrop-Kenmore Corridor that is generally regarded as the connective element that joins Uptown to Edgewater, its neighboring CCA to the north (Ratcliffe 1978; Marciniak 1984). Figure 6.3: Map of Sheridan Park (Tract 317), Uptown neighborhood. The plat for Sheridan Park was laid out in the last quarter of the nineteenth century by Ossian Cole Simonds, a prominent landscape architect of the era. Simonds aligned the north-south streets with the preexisting North Clark Street and gave the grid a slight slant above West Sunnyside Avenue (DeBat 1988). Located sufficiently far from 252 the congested Loop yet close enough for pre-automobile commuting, Sheridan Park quickly attracted Chicago’s middle- and upper-class families, who built their homes there between 1891 and the onset of the Great Depression (National Register of Historic Places 1985). Housing in the Sheridan Park neighborhood is comprised of a roughly equal number of six-flats [Figure 6.4] and one- or two-family houses [Figure 6.5]. Larger, multi-story buildings are located at key intersections [Figure 6.6]. Small commercial/office buildings run the length of North Clark Street [Figure 6.7] and, to a lesser extent, along Sheridan Park’s other semi-commercial thoroughfares. Some new residential construction [Figures 6.8, 6.9] and upscale retail and dining [Figure 6.10] are apparent in the neighborhood today and provide a visual indicator of gentrification. However, there is far less of this present than in Lincoln Park. Most shops in Sheridan Park are of the lower-end, “mom and pop” variety. Their continued existence suggests that commercial rents in Sheridan Park have not yet risen to the point that stores have been priced out of the neighborhood and displaced. Nor have changes in consumer tastes rendered them obsolete. Despite the presence of commercial uses, Sheridan Park can be characterized principally as a residential enclave. 253 Figure 6.4: 4636-4638 North Malden Street, a typical six-flat in Sheridan Park. Source: author. 254 Figure 6.5: 5602 North Malden Street, a particularly exuberant single-family home in Sheridan Park. Source: author. Figure 6.6: High-density buildings at the intersection of North Malden Street and West Wilson Avenue, Sheridan Park. Source: author. 255 Figure 6.7: Typical commercial buildings along the 4000 block of North Clark Street, Sheridan Park. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. Figure 6.8: New six-flat construction (built ca.2000) at 4606 North Malden Street. Source: author. 256 Figure 6.9: New six-flat construction (built ca.2008) at 4721 North Malden Street. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. Figure 6.10: Upscale restaurant at 1224 West Wilson, Sheridan Park, Uptown. Source:YoChicago.com. One of two academic buildings that constitutes the small campus of Harry S. Truman College sits inside the eastern border of Sheridan Park, along North Racine Avenue. This community college is perhaps the largest institutional presence in the 257 neighborhood. The north and south boundaries of Sheridan Park are articulated by the presence of two major cemeteries. To the immediate north is Saint Boniface Catholic Cemetery, while the larger, historic Graceland Cemetery, home to many of Chicago’s renowned politicians, business people, and architects, is situated to the south. Undeveloped public space in Sheridan Park is limited to two small parks. Gooseberry Playlot Park is a minor pocket park located on North Malden Street, while the somewhat larger Broncho Billy Park—an homage to the screen name of Gilbert M. Anderson, cofounder of Essanay Studios—is located on North Magnolia Avenue. An examination of the census data on a decadal basis between 1970 and 2000 suggests that Sheridan Park experienced upgrading that is generally consistent with gentrification [Tables 6.9-6.13]. However, unlike Lincoln Park, the development trajectories in Sheridan Park have not been as consistent or as linear. Much more fluctuation is apparent and suggests a neighborhood that is struggling with gentrification; one that is not a “natural” or easy environment for the process to take hold. Instead, gentrification in Sheridan Park has been the result of concerted inducement on the part of developers and homeowners. At the same time, local politicians and affordable housing advocates in the Uptown CCA have generated local opposition that has stymied some of these efforts. In all of Uptown, the Sheridan Park neighborhood was perhaps the most receptive environment to gentrification. 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 White -4,544 -1,711 no change White % -45.78% -31.79% no change Black 954 648 -90 Black % 657.93% 58.96% -5.15% Hispanic 1,246 36 151 Hispanic % 140.63% 1.69% 6.96% Table 6.9: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Race (absolute and percent change). 258 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 College Grads. 243 335 1,100 College Grads. % 62.79% 53.17% 113.99% Professionals 262 130 707 Professionals % 67.18% 19.94% 90.41% Manufacturers -331 -252 -544 Manufacturers % -22.15% -21.67% -59.71% Table 6.10: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Education and Employment Characteristics (absolute and percent change). 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Per Capita Income -$2,395 $2,843 $8,501 Per Capita Income % -18.51% 26.97% 63.51% Family Income -$8,295 -$2,429 $9,329 Family Income % -23.72% -9.11% 38.47% Poverty Poverty % -15 -48 -308 -2.50% -8.22% -57.46 Table 6.11: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Income and Poverty (absolute and percent change). Total Units 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 -730 -393 554 Total Units % -14.86% -9.40% 1.42% Median Value $45,711 $116,507 -$41,800 Median Value % 43.21% 76.91% -15.60% Gross Rent -$48 $56 $33 Gross Rent % -10.06% 13.01% 6.73% Table 6.12: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Units, Median Value, and Gross Rent (absolute and percent change) 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Owner Housing Units -13 2 520 Owner Housing Units % -6.40% 1.05% 270.83% Renter Housing Units -952 -405 19 Renter Housing Units % -22.45 -12.32% 0.66% Vacant Units Vacant Units % 235 10 -485 50.0% 1.42% -67.83% Table 6.13: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Tenure (absolute and percent change). 6.5 Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Redevelopment in Uptown Despite its siting along Chicago’s greatest natural amenity, Lake Michigan, Uptown did not effortlessly gentrify like Lincoln Park and Lake View to the south. A “domino effect” was clearly evident in those two neighborhoods. Lincoln Park’s adjacency to the Gold Coast, a tony neighborhood that never significantly deteriorated, eased the process of gentrification beginning in the 1960s. Lake View’s proximity to Lincoln Park had a similar effect a decade later. However, despite its shared southern border with Lake View, the social conditions in Uptown and its higher-density building stock presented an obstacle to redevelopment that has mitigated—although not prevented—the arrival of gentrification and displacement. Explored in this section of the chapter is how historic preservation effectively created a “beachhead” for gentrification in Uptown’s Sheridan Park neighborhood and 259 how this has facilitated limited upgrading across the broader CCA. In Betancur’s assessment it was historic preservation that galvanized gentrification in Uptown: “Historical designation of two large sections [Sheridan Park and Buena Park] occupied by racial minorities and condominium development throughout turned Uptown into a hotbed of gentrification and conflict especially after the 1980s” (Betancur 2011, p. 389). Since the 1950s Uptown harbored the reputation as a troubled “transient district” of “threatening,” impoverished residents and mental health asylum discharges living in shabby, subdivided apartments and SROs (Pacyga and Skerrett 1986, p. 110). Yet the Chicago Tribune prophesized in a 1974 article that a proto-yuppie “swinger” takeover would soon occur in Uptown, one fostered by the reinvestment and redevelopment that was emerging in the neighborhood and causing the displacement of poor residents. The article quoted a local developer who argued that successful reinvestment projects in Uptown required that an owner adopt an unsentimental attitude toward renters and be willing to straighten out the tenancy, which is probably the single biggest problem in fixing up a building. You must get rid of your undesirable tenants and bring in tenants who would contribute to the building’s well-being… A slum is not buildings, a slum is people” (Cross 1974, p. 23). Indeed, the 1970s were a period of sweeping change in Uptown, particularly in terms of race. In the Sheridan Park neighborhood, white population declined by nearly half while black and Hispanic population, like much of the city, skyrocketed in tripledigits, by 657% and 140%, respectively. Declines in per capita income (18%) and family income (23%) attended this racial transformation yet poverty also saw a slight 2% decline. Nevertheless, the number of college graduates and professionals—both harbingers of gentrification—increased by 62% and 67%. These groups likely formed 260 the foundation for gentrification in the decades that followed. Most importantly, perhaps, the 1970s witnessed a jump in the median value of housing in Sheridan Park by 43%. By the mid-1980s, Uptown was being described—with derision or approval, depending on who was using the expression—as “Yuptown,” and displacement was increasingly identified as a significant concern among poor neighborhood residents (Anonymous 1986; DeBat 1988; DeBat 1990). In the Sheridan Park case study neighborhood, per capita income increased by 26% while the decline in family income slowed to 9%. Change in the college-educated and professional population also slowed to 53% and 19%, respectively. The decline in Uptown residents employed in manufacturing was continuous across all decades. The precipitous drop of 45% in Sheridan Park’s white population in the 1970s had slowed during the 1980s to 31%. Black and Hispanic growth had also slowed considerably from the triple-digits of the 1970s to double-digits (58% for blacks) and single-digits (1% Hispanics). A period of sweeping racial change in Sheridan Park was over. The mixed racial composition of the neighborhood would suggest that local upgrading is being driven by a diverse class of gentrifiers. However, evidence from secondary sources like newspapers suggest that the developers driving the process are almost exclusively white. The 1980s also saw a 76% increase in the value of housing and a 13% increase in rents. Homeownership saw a slight increase, of only 1%, while the 22% decline in rental units from the 1970s slowed to 12%. In this housing climate, many residents of Uptown developed an aversion to capital reinvestment projects that stood the potential of further reducing access to affordable housing units. Low-income residents regarded rehabilitation projects, in particular, as a disguised means of achieving the dual unspoken goals of gentrification and the removal of the poor (Sheppard 1981). 261 During the 1990s, the racial makeup of Sheridan Park stabilized with no change in the white population, a 5% decline in the black population, and a 6% increase in the Hispanic population. The number of college graduates rebounded with a 113% increase after growing by only 53% in the 1980s. The professional population expanded by 90% and solidified an already strong professional presence in the neighborhood. Per capita and family incomes increased by 63% and 38%, respectively, and poverty declined by 57%. Homeownership grew by a remarkable 270%, but the number of rental units remained virtually unchanged. Perhaps the most striking change was in the median value of housing, which contracted by 15%. Nevertheless, by 2001, the Chicago Tribune had anointed Uptown “the latest hot neighborhood” in the city (Palmer 2001, n. pag). This changing trajectory in Uptown was attributed by some observers to the creation of large historic districts in the CCA, first in the Buena Park neighborhood, with its numerous historic tax credit-financed rehabilitation projects (Kerch 1986; Brott 1988), and shortly thereafter in Sheridan Park. Reflecting on the previous decade, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1990 that “The landmarking of the Sheridan Park neighborhood in 1985 sparked a sweeping housing renovation movement” that spilled over from the neighborhood into adjacent areas (DeBat 1990, p. 31). The implication in this article and others like it was that historic preservation was a means of taming an otherwise unruly neighborhood and preparing it for the arrival the bourgeoisie—a “new breed” of affluent residents, as the Chicago Sun-Times noted (Rotzoll 1986, p. 44). Historic preservation activity in Uptown began in earnest in the mid-1980s and was concentrated in six of the CCA’s twelve census tracts. The first historic district listed in the National Register of Historic Places was the Buena Park district (listed 1984). Located to the southeast of Sheridan Park, this residential district is considered the 262 impetus for the Sheridan Park Historic District, which followed in 1985 [Figure 6.11] (Karamanski 2010). A third National Register district from the period 1970-2000 was the East Ravenswood Historic District (listed in 1991). This large residential district spans the western portion of Uptown, but is situated primarily in the Lake View CCA to the south. Finally, the Uptown Square Historic District (listed in 2000) is a collection of primarily commercial properties to the immediate east of Sheridan Park. In addition to these historic districts, a small number of individual National Register properties are also located in Uptown. Perhaps the most prominent among these is the Uptown Theatre at 4816 North Broadway (listed in 1986), the preservation of which has become a cause célèbre among residents of the CCA and theater enthusiasts across Chicagoland. 263 Figure 6.11: Sheridan Park Historic District boundaries. The City of Chicago landmarked relatively few properties or districts in Uptown during the 1970-2000 period and none in Sheridan Park specifically. However, the small Hutchinson Street District was created in 1977 and six individual properties were also landmarked. Uptown and Sheridan Park are hubs of historic preservation financial incentives. The CCA has seen over one hundred tax assessment freeze projects since the early- 264 1980s and approximately fifty tax credit projects since the mid-1970s. The latter is particularly significant given that tax credit projects tend to be larger and more complex in scope. Approximately thirty of these projects have been undertaken in the Sheridan Park Historic District [Figure 6.12]. This reflects the idiosyncrasies of the housing stock of Sheridan Park and Uptown and the fact that multi-unit rental apartments are plentiful here. Since tax credits are reserved for income-producing properties, they are found in areas with high concentrations of either commercial buildings—the Loop being the best example—or rental apartments. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Uptown has been one of Chicago’s “apartment districts” since the turn of the last century. To promote rehabilitation work through the use of the Historic Preservation Tax Credit incentive, the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency worked with local neighborhood associations in Uptown to educate local developers and homeowners in the use of the program. For example, the Chicago Tribune reported in 2000 that the “Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and the Uptown Chicago Commission are holding a series of workshops for homeowners interested in upgrading their historic properties” (Anonymous 2000, n. pag). As in Lincoln Park, seminars on tax credits and assessment freeze projects were regularly held within Sheridan Park and Uptown. 265 Figure 6.12: National Register individual properties, tax credit projects, and tax assessment freeze projects in the Sheridan Park neighborhood. Note: multiple projects in a single building (usually a multi-unit building) are “stacked” on map and appear as a single feature. The National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Sheridan Park Historic District was written by University of Illinois-Chicago professor Martin C. Tangora on behalf of the Sheridan Park Neighbors Association (DeBat 1990). It was the drafting of this nomination that popularized the name “Sheridan Park,” effectively doing away with the older moniker “Heart of Uptown.” This adoption of the older, historic name for the neighborhood reflects programmatic requirements of the National Register that the property name used be one “that best reflects the property's historic importance or was commonly used for the property during the period of significance” (National Park Service 266 1997, n. pag). But it was also a conscious “re-branding” of the neighborhood and a way to set Sheridan Park apart from Uptown and its unsavory reputation. Developers in the neighborhood were quick to follow suite in their use of this new, “baggage-free” name and “Sheridan Park” quickly replaced “Uptown” in rental estate listings and rental advertisements (McNamee 1987). As in other neighborhoods, the presence of the district and its new name were reinforced visually through the use of strategically mounted of placards around the neighborhood [Figure 6.13] and occasional wallmounted plaques [Figure 6.14]. Figure 6.13: Sheridan Park Historic District placard, ca. 1986. Source: Uptown Chicago History. 267 Figure 6.14: National Register of Historic Places plaque, Malden Towers, Sheridan Park, Uptown. Source: author. However, support for the National Register listing was not universal in Sheridan Park or among Uptown residents in general. Concerted efforts were made by local activist organizations to raise public awareness of the potential negative outcomes of historic designation—what to many must have seemed like an innocuous and rather esoteric government program. A long-time community organizer in Uptown, Slim Coleman, who was founder and then-president of the Heart of Uptown Coalition (as well as an ardent supporter of Alderman Helen Shiller and aide to Mayor Harold Washington), publically expressed concerns about the Sheridan Park Historic District designation (Rotzoll 1986). His fears centered on the possible land speculation and “real estate war” that the designation might bring, a war fought over escalating real estate prices and rents and a shrinking supply of affordable housing in Uptown. Coleman’s fears seemed to be realized when, in the wake of the Sheridan Park Historic District designation, rehabilitation efforts at 4716-4724 North Beacon Street forced the eviction of approximately thirty-six immigrant families by the developer 268 (Anonymous 1986; Rotzoll 1986). The Chicago Sun-Times reported on the protests that these evictions generated: The evictions of 36 Laotian and Cambodian families from their Uptown apartments by a new landlord drew hundreds of Uptown activists to a rally Saturday. They brandished signs that read, "We Want Uptown - Not Yuptown," angrily denouncing the development plans of Randall H. Langer, who bought buildings to create a development called Sheridan Park (Anonymous 1986, p. 16). Prior to serving eviction notices to his tenants, Randall Langer of the firm Community Property Organization reportedly stopped maintenance on the building’s decaying plumbing system. His hope was that any consequent leaks would force an “odor-driven evacuation” (Bennett 1997, p. 199) of the building and spare him the negative press of the evictions. Randall Langer of the firm Community Property Organization was one of the promoters of Sheridan Park’s new incarnation as a historic district. A prominent real estate developer working in Uptown during the 1980s, Langer was credited with helping to spearhead the local National Register effort—primarily for the historic preservation tax incentives that would then be made available. Randall was quoted in a Chicago SunTimes article, “Sheridan Pk. Historic Status Sparks Rebirth,” in which he espoused the use of preservation incentives that helped remove developers’ uncertainty about the neighborhood’s feasibility: Without the tax credits now available to rehabbers, developers have been reluctant to invest in a depressed area because of the uncertain future. It is now feasible for them to come into Sheridan Park and invest in restoration (Busk 1986, p. 11). Responding to concerns akin to those expressed by Coleman and Alderman Shiller, that the National Register nomination would spur gentrification and displacement, the article also quoted Tangora, who responded by arguing 269 I don't think the neighborhood will be gentrified. It's an exaggerated fear. There is only room in Chicago for one Lincoln Park and there aren't enough rich people to go around (ibid.). The perception that historic preservation stimulated an otherwise moribund housing market in Sheridan Park was repeatedly expressed in the newspapers of the late-1980s and early-1990s. The role of developers—and Langer in particular—in the preservation efforts of the historic district cannot be understated. The Chicago Tribune noted this in April 1988 when it attributed the successful National Register listing to the developer’s efforts: “Langer won government approval of federal historic-district status for parts of Uptown, a distinction that allows income-tax credits for investors in rehabilitation projects there” (Anonymous 1988, n. pag). A subsequent Tribune article from 1990 attributed improvements in the neighborhood to Langer’s efforts and to the National Register listing: “This [listing] has led to the current real-estate boom in the area.” (DeBat 1990, p. 31). Paraphrasing Langer, the article reported further that Property values have increased steadily since landmark status was attained. Six-flats, one of the dominant building types, range from about $245,000 to $450,000, depending on condition, while single-family homes go for $275,000 to $395,000 (ibid.). Moreover, both the Sheridan Park and Buena Park historic districts were mentioned in a 1988 Chicago Sun-Times article that noted how each drew new residents to Uptown and equated capital reinvestment in the district’s real estate with the neighborhood’s newfound desirability “That was all the impetus others needed to slap up some building permits and go to work carving out another desirable neighborhood niche on the North Side” (Halperin 1988, p. 10). Those involved in the carving out” of this newly desirable “niche” of Uptown were middle-income families, urban pioneers, and members of the 270 gay community (Rotzoll 1986). Others, primarily renters, were students at Northwestern University in nearby Evanston or the Goodman School of Drama (now the Theatre School at DePaul University, relocated to the Loop) (DeBat 1988; DeBat 1990). In addition to Langer and other smaller-scale developers working in Uptown at that time, the non-profit community organization, Uptown Chicago Commission (UCC), also supported the nomination of several districts in the Uptown CCA. Along with the Uptown Chamber of Commerce, the UCC was characterized in the local newspapers as pro-development and “pro-gentrification” (McNamee 1987, p. 5). It was supported financially and politically by diverse business interests in Uptown, included the Uptown National Bank, Uptown Federal Savings and Loan, Kemper Insurance, and Combined Insurance (Maly 2005; Henderson 2007). As noted on its website, the UCC described preservation as “important activity” which, over the decades, it has supported through the establishment of three historic districts in Uptown—Sheridan Park, Buena Park, and Uptown Square—which have been a catalyst for the renaissance of the residential and commercial community (Uptown Chicago Commission 2014, n. pag). While newspaper articles equated the National Register listing with a “real-estate boom” and “sweeping housing renovation” activities (Kerch 1986; Brott 1988), it is unsurprising that poor local residents and affordable housing organizations became suspicious of historic preservation’s true intentions. For example, the Uptown Task Force on Displacement, one of many local community groups active in the area in the 1980s, accused developer Langer of attempting to transform Uptown into “Lincoln Park II” by displacing low-income families in “at least ten” buildings in the Sheridan Park district (Anonymous 1988). Yet at the same time, Langer was honored by the North Side Real Estate Board in 1987, when it presented him with a Good Neighbor Award for his rehabilitation work on the thirteen-unit historic building at 4601-4603 North Malden 271 Street and 1258-1262 West Wilson Avenue, located in the heart of the Sheridan Park Historic District (Richardson 1987). By 1990, the Chicago Sun-Times’ third annual Chicago House Hunt Guide specifically included Sheridan Park—not Uptown—alongside Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and other gentrification mainstays as a “hot city area.” “Hot,” in this case, was a reflection of the dramatic appreciation in the neighborhood’s housing prices over the previous year (Anonymous 1990). Indeed, housing was seen as the principal driver of recent upgrading in the neighborhood. This was noted in the Chicago Tribune: Most of Uptown`s economic development, officials agree, is being spurred by residential growth, both new construction and the renovation of older dwellings. Such development, once confined to the community`s east end, is now crossing over North Sheridan Road and heading west (Sulski 1988, n. pag). The increased demand for housing in Uptown, particularly that of higher value, was accompanied by a commensurate demand for local retail and services. Residential upgrading in the neighborhood consequently drove upgrading across the breadth of land uses. By the mid-1980s, the residents of Sheridan Park had organized to respond to perceived incursions into their newly-minted “hot” and historic neighborhood. The voice of these residents was the Sheridan Park Neighbors Association. Among other activities, this association protested the mandated inclusion of scattered-site, subsidized housing for low-income families as required under the Gautreaux court decision of 1969 (McRoberts 1994). Members of this neighborhood association argued that the Sheridan Park section of Uptown, a census tract in itself, was already home to as many lowincome residents as the neighborhood could reasonably absorb15. Later in the 1990s, 15 The Department of Housing and Urban Development and The Habitat Company, a non-profit that managed the Chicago Housing Authority’s scattered-site house at the time, responded by showing that 272 the Sheridan Park Neighbors Association attempted to zone “noxious land uses” out of the neighborhood by spearheading a “vote-dry initiative” that would gradually ban the sales of alcohol through the revocation of liquor licenses (Bergmann 1998). Such punitive actions harkens to the revanchist, “zero-tolerance” policies of New York during the 2000s, as well as other cities, that have been interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to force out the poor and “take back” the city for the middle class (Smith 1996; Slater 2004). As would be expected, attacks on Uptown’s affordable housing options and on the longstanding support institutions by developers and pro-development neighborhood groups added to the swelling anti-gentrification outcry. The Chicago Sun-Times remarked that before Uptown, “never before has gentrification been resisted with such intensity” (McNamee 1987, p. 5). Hurley describes a hypothetical scenario involving preservation in a poor neighborhood that describes the context of Uptown, as well other gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago like Wicker Park and Pilsen. In the initial phases of the revitalization process, working-class residents usually welcomed the influx of middle-class buyers, although some might have chafed at the austere aesthetics enforced through local architectural guidelines. At the point where they perceived their own homes to be threatened, reactions ranged from a fatalistic acceptance to a militant defense. The latter course of action was most likely to be taken when rehabbers attacked the institutions that had long supported poorer segments of the population—health clinics, food pantries, homeless shelters, substance abuse treatment centers, and Section 8 housing (Hurley 2010, p. 27). (See also (Jakle and Wilson 1992, p. 248). This description is only fitting to a point, however. Historic preservation in Uptown failed to develop into the lightning rod it might have become under other circumstances. This was due in part to the efforts of some developers and housing advocates to undertake projects that could capitalize both on incentives to rehabilitate less than three percent of the existing housing in Sheridan Park was low-income—well under the fifteen percent limit proscribed by the Gautreaux ruling. 273 historic properties and incentives to provide affordable housing. In the 1990s, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation developed a policy statement to guide Federal agencies in harmonizing historic preservation and the provision of affordable housing. The policy message was clearly articulated: Historic buildings provide affordable housing to many American families. Affordable housing rehabilitation can contribute to the ongoing vitality of historic neighborhoods as well as of the businesses and institutions that serve them. Rehabilitation can be an important historic preservation strategy… Federal tax incentives provide opportunities for historic preservation and affordable housing to work together, including the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit and the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2006, p. 7388). Several properties within Sheridan Park followed this Federal policy during the period 1970-2000 and “piggybacked” Historic Preservation Tax Credits with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and other incentives. An example of this was the Malden Towers apartment hotel at 4521 North Malden Street [Figure 6.15]. This six-story, art deco tower was listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983 and as part of the Sheridan Park Historic District in 1985. As part of its rehabilitation in the late-1980s, below-market rate units were included in the building. A more recent example is the 1926 Leland Apartments at 1207 West Leland Avenue, which was rehabilitated as incomerestricted apartments between 2001 and 2005 [Figure 6.16]. The apartment building is included in the Sheridan Park Historic District. 274 Figure 6.15: Malden Towers, 4521 North Malden Street, listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983 and as part of the Sheridan Park Historic District in 1985. Historic Preservation tax credit project for mixed-income housing. Source: author. Figure 6.16: Leland Apartments, 1207 West Leland Avenue, listed as part of the Sheridan Park Historic District in 1985. Source: Heartland Alliance Housing. 275 Redevelopment trends in the 1990s through the present, both in Sheridan Park in particular and in pockets of Uptown, suggest that the CCA might be following the direction established by Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park and other gentrified neighborhoods in Chicago. Housing groups that once fought the arrival of new upscale developments and large redevelopment projects have shifted tactics. They now concede that change is underway and instead work with developers and the City of Chicago to include affordable housing in new market-rate development projects. Historic rehabilitation projects are among these. In the 2000s, with several historic districts already in place, support for the individual landmarks in Uptown has grown. The Uptown Theater at 4816 North Broadway is a case in point [Figure 6.17]. The highly-visible and iconic Uptown Theater serves as a ready-made marketing tool for a neighborhood that is trying to promote itself as an entertainment destination in Chicago. Landmarked by the city in 1991 but in need of permanent tenant and major repairs, the building was included in the non-profit Landmarks Illinois’s annual endangered list no less than four times (in 1996, 2001, 2010, and 2014). 276 Figure 6.17: Uptown Theater. Source: Chicago Tribune. Alderman James Cappleman of the adjacent 46th Ward (the theater sits on a peninsula of the gerrymandered 48th Ward) offered his support for the building’s preservation on the Friends of the Uptown website. Specifically, Cappleman acknowledged the central role that the theater would play in a revived Uptown neighborhood, now branded by Mayor Rahm Emanuel as the “Uptown Entertainment District”: For the 14 years that I’ve lived in Uptown, I’ve been taken with the Uptown Theatre. I know I’m not alone when I say that I sense how undeniably special this building is. It holds a singular place in the history of Chicago entertainment, and exemplifies architecture we may never see again. I believe that next chapter of the story of this great theater will be written very soon, and there has never been a better time for this project to move forward. With support from Mayor Emanuel, this venue will be the centerpiece of the revitalized Uptown Entertainment District. This building embodies the spirit of Uptown, full of rich history and a future bright with possibility. I’m honored to have the opportunity to be part of the future of the Uptown Theatre (Friends of the Uptown 2014). Cappleman’s statement reveals how politicians in Chicago now view historic preservation not through its original lens of history and cultural value, but rather as a 277 market-based, public-private partnership program that can help achieve neighborhood revitalization goals. As Wilson notes: “Such private-market rhetoric, the ascendant mantra of neo-liberalism, now engulfs a host of Chicago government programs including historic preservation” (Wilson 2006, p. 195). Elsewhere in Sheridan Park and in Uptown, support for threatened buildings has been mixed. This has been particularly true in cases involving residential properties and likely reflects the unwillingness of politicians to become embroiled in debates over private property rights—this issue being particularly acute and contentious when it involves individual residences. For example, the 19th century house at 4627 North Beacon Street in the Sheridan Park Historic District was demolished in 2005 after a protracted battle with neighboring property owners [Figure 6.18]. The Chicago Tribune noted that “For nearly four years, residents of the Sheridan Park section of Uptown clashed with developer Chris Byrne, who bought the house that was considered the oldest in the neighborhood. Byrne planned an eight-unit condominium building for the lot, even though it wasn't zoned for such use” (Jeffers 2009). Preservation supporters once regarded developers as Sheridan Park’s saviors. Historic rehabilitation work using the tax credit program operationalized honorific programs like the National Register of Historic Places. Yet these programs required extensive reinvestment capital and technical expertise that typically only developers could leverage. In the 1990s and 2000s, preservation supporters in Sheridan Park found themselves at odds with their former allies, now condemning the actions of developers who were altering the fabric of a neighborhood that was an increasingly stable and desirable enough to attract new residents and investment. Demolitions are not as common in Sheridan Park as they are in high-demand areas like Lincoln Park. After all, the building stock of Sheridan Park and Uptown has always been higher278 density than many other neighborhoods in Chicago, making tear-downs potentially more costly. Nevertheless, the demolition of single-family homes continues today and threatens the integrity of the historic district [Figure 6.19]. This is familiar problem in urban historic districts that use preservation to promote and popularize a neighborhood, only to later suffer from the new development pressures that that popularity brings. Figure 6.18: 4627 North Beacon Street, Sheridan Park. Source: Uptown Update. 279 Figure 6.19: 4642 North Magnolia Avenue, Sheridan Park. Demolished in 2014. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. 6.6 Conclusion In spite of the work of ONE and other neighborhood groups that advocate for affordable housing in Uptown, the courting of higher-income residents through marketing and new upscale development is playing a large role in shaping the physical and socioeconomic makeup of the neighborhood. A turning point for Uptown occurred in 1986, with the sudden death of Mayor Harold Washington and eventual election of Richard M. Daley in 1989. With these mayoral changes, there was a steep decline in political support for Coleman and Alderman Shiller, Uptown’s most vocal advocates for the poor. The Chicago Tribune noted that this shift in power trickled from City Hall down into the wards of Uptown, where market forces and the imperatives of the private sector would now play a greater role in shaping development in the CCA: “The push of the middle class into Uptown and the squeezing out of the poor is inevitable,” said one senior [Mayor Harold] Washington official now working under [interim, appointed] Mayor Eugene Sawyer. “We thought we could protect those low-income residents. But market forces are stronger than politics. And there are new politics in Chicago now, anyway” (Kass 1987, n. pag). 280 Private developers were the shock troops of gentrification in Uptown and key players in the increasingly neoliberal ethos of privately-driven renewal. In their promotion of historic preservation for its tax advantages, through the use of historic rehabilitation tax credits, they were able to capitalize on the neighborhood’s multi-family, rental housing stock and steer the course of development in the neighborhood towards greater revitalization. Proximity to Lake View, which itself was undergoing gentrification during the period 19702000, rendered Uptown a logical locus for their latest efforts. Developers can thus be regarded as one of the main drivers of preservation-fueled gentrification in Uptown. For instance, in contrast to Lincoln Park, where early preservation initiatives were more community-based and organic—appearing before government assumed a leading role in preservation efforts—historic preservation in Uptown emerges in response to government preservation initiatives and is heavily shaped by developers seeking financial incentives. To some extent, Uptown’s powerful and established advocacy groups were able to check the efforts of developers and force solutions that were in keeping with their affordable housing mandates. However, low-income housing units were largely located in less desirable areas outside of the “Heart of Uptown”: that is, Sheridan Park and its residential historic district. Yet in spite of the successful efforts of these groups, the private market—supported by historic preservation incentives—has driven most redevelopment in Uptown over the period 1970-2000 and it continues to do so today. A recent study of housing in the Chicago region by DePaul University confirms this trend. It revealed an increasingly dire need for affordable housing across the greater metropolitan area. The study found that the Uptown/Rogers Park market area 281 (into which the Edgewater CCA was also folded) was not as severely stressed as Lakeview/Lincoln Park and other wealthier areas in the city and suburbs. Nevertheless, it showed that increasing local costs and the conversion of apartments to market-rate— and often high-end market-rate—condominiums has created an acute shortage of affordable housing units, leaving approximately twenty percent (8,000 households) of the demand in Uptown/Rogers unmet by the current supply (Institute for Housing Studies 2013). Many of the affordable units that have been “deconverted” in recent years are SROs that are concentrated in the Uptown and Edgewater CCAs and have involved the forced eviction of existing residents (Woodard 2013). The results of these efforts has been the slow gentrification of Uptown. This process began with Sheridan Park and its historic district, which served as a sort of gentrification beachhead. As the local newspaper Chicago Reader noted in 2007, [G]entrification proceeds apace [in Uptown], and includes teardowns and condo conversations, tasteful or otherwise. During the 1990s the percentage of lots occupied by condos increased by 102 percent, while the number occupied by apartment buildings actually dropped. Most of the six-flat rentals present in Sheridan Park when it became a historic district 20 years ago have gone condo (Henderson 2007, p. 5). 282 Chapter 7: Case Study #3: Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville (Edgewater) 7.1 Introduction The third and final case study is census tract 308. This tract is located in the Edgewater CCA on Chicago’s far north side, to the immediate north of Uptown, and straddles two neighborhoods: Lakewood-Balmoral in its entirety and the eastern portion of Andersonville, an area sometimes referred to as “East Andersonville” (Kerch 1988). For the purposes of this dissertation, this case study neighborhood is referred to as “Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville” [Figure 7.1]. 283 Figure 7.1: Map showing location of Edgewater CCA and case study neighborhood. Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville represents a chronologically later and more subtle form of gentrification than either of the two preceding case studies. It is akin to what Henig describes as “cautious gentrification” (Henig 1980, p. 648). The neighborhood has not been transformed by the intense gentrification activities so clearly seen in Lincoln Park, with its proliferation of rehabilitation projects, tear-downs, new 284 construction, and palatial new multi-lot homes. Nor has it seen the levels of physical decay and persistent poverty of Uptown that has made that neighborhood at once threatening for potential gentrifications but, at the same time, an attractive locus for developers seeking to profit by closing the rent gap. Rather, LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville remained a solid and stable neighborhood over the period 19702000, shifting gradually during the 1980s and 1990s from a neighborhood characterized by its “incumbent upgrading” to one of gentrification. By the late-1990s it had become the wellspring of revitalization in the greater Edgewater neighborhood—the source from which gentrification spilled over into adjacent areas, most notably into Andersonville and its Andersonville Commercial Historic District (Brown-Saracino 2009), a National Register district that overlaps census tract 308 at North Clark Street. The process of designating this district began in 2004 but not completed until 2009. By 2000, a limited amount of displacement had accompanied this upgrading in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville and in Edgewater. Among the groups mentioned in this context were lesbians, who settled in Edgewater—and in particular, in the Andersonville part of the CCA—much as gay men had settled in the Boys Town neighborhood of Lake View during the 1970s. Yet references in the press to displacement in Edgewater are uncommon. An explanation for this may be the area’s lack of an impoverished class to be “victimized” by gentrification, as in much of Uptown or in Lincoln Park’s western reaches in the 1970s and 1980s. Displacement of middle-income residents does not appear to be seen as newsworthy in Chicago as it is elsewhere—in London, for example (Butler 2013). This chapter begins with a discussion of the greater Edgewater CCA in which Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville is located. It then focuses on the population and 285 housing changes underway within the neighborhood and case study tract over the period 1970-2000. The chapter continues with a discussion of upgrading in LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville and reveals how residents’ groups have promoted stability in the neighborhood through historic preservation and related housing activities. The work of these groups effectively minimized the type of class struggle witnessed in nearby Uptown. 7.2 Edgewater CCA As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Edgewater CCA and its neighbor to the south, Uptown, were unified under the latter’s name until 1980. Through the work of the Edgewater Community Council, Edgewater seceded from Uptown to become Chicago’s final CCA, the penultimate O’Hare coming into existence shortly before (Henderson 2007). This separation was largely at the behest of Edgewater’s residents, who regarded the declining Uptown neighborhood to their south as an impediment to future revitalization. Marciniak described this as Edgewater’s “territorial imperative,” which “led Edgewater’s business, religious and community leaders to a self-defense strategy through which they would accent Edgewater’s unique advantages and dissimilarities to Uptown” (Marciniak 1984, p. 33). In the 1990s, Edgewaterites would frame their secession in less opportunistic terms of historical validation, separating from Uptown as being a way to recognize and legitimize their individual neighborhood history (Blommaert 1998; Kleine 1998). In general, however, Edgewater has had to actively promote itself to make its presence known in an area with a patchwork of distinctive neighborhoods, including Uptown, Rogers Park, and Ravenswood (Galvan 1983). The historic Lakewood-Balmoral neighborhood was one way of proclaiming Edgewater’s attractiveness and uniqueness. 286 In terms of housing stock today, the Edgewater CCA looks very much like Uptown. Both are heavily residential and have significant numbers of condominiums and large buildings with 5+ units, with smaller percentages of single-family homes and 24 unit buildings [Table 7.1]. However, single-family homes and 2-4 unit buildings are better represented in the Edgewater housing market and large, 50+ unit apartment buildings are more common in Uptown. The “suburban” Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District, comprised almost entirely of single-family homes, is partially responsible for Edgewater’s lower densities. Otherwise, the two CCAs are morphologically similar and this is part of the reason that Ernest W. Burgess and his team of University of Chicago sociologists treated the two as a single entity when they delineated CCAs in the late1920s and 1930s. Housing type Single-family house Condominium 2-4 unit building 5-49 unit building 50+ unit building Edgewater 4.8% 34.5% 11.8% 24.3% 24.7% Chicago 25.3% 20.2% 27.0% 19.7% 7.8% Table 7.1: Housing Stock in the Edgewater CCA and Chicago, 2014. Source: Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. The development of Edgewater proceeded like many residential neighborhoods within Chicago and suburban areas immediately outside its borders. A subdivision named “Edgewater” was platted by developer John Lewis Cochran in 1886 when the area was still part of the unincorporated Town of Lake View (Pacyga and Skerrett 1986). At that time the area was mainly undeveloped and used to farm celery. In 1889, the 52,000 people of Lake View, including those in Edgewater, became Chicagoans as the town was annexed into the city. Of the early settlers, Germans and Irish were in abundance, much as in the rest of Chicago. A large Swedish settlement also formed along North Clark Street in what 287 later became the Andersonville section of Edgewater. “Andersonville” was purposefully selected as a neighborhood moniker to solidify connections to its Scandinavian origins and to provide the neighborhood with a sort of marketing hook. While this ethnic group has long dispersed to other parts of the metropolitan area, the Andersonville neighborhood consciously sustains a connection to its ethnic roots through Swedish shops and restaurants, the American Swedish Museum, themed fests, and a variety of physical embellishments—many in the traditional Swedish colors of blue and yellow [Figure 7.2]. Figure 7.2: Swedish American Museum water tower (currently removed) painted to resemble a Swedish flag, Andersonville. Source: Northwestern University. Edgewater has also attracted notable concentrations of Asians, mainly from Vietnam, who reside on West Argyle Street’s “New Chinatown.” This area’s history was acknowledged by the listing of the West Argyle Street Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places in 2010. Beginning in the 1980s gay men and lesbians also concentrated in the Andersonville neighborhood (Brown-Saracino 2004; Brown-Saracino 2007; Brown-Saracino 2009). This has become companion of sorts to the Boys Town 288 neighborhood of Lincoln Park. Boys Town became a hub of activity for gay men in the 1970s and was referred to as “America’s First Official Gay Neighborhood”—“official” because of the eleven pairs of permanent, 23-foot-high, rainbow-colored pylons that the city erected around the neighborhood in 1998 (Gellman 2005). A railroad stop for Edgewater was established in 1908 at Bryn Mawr Avenue. This ensured the continued growth and development of the area. By the end of the 19th century, Edgewater was considered one of the most exclusive and desirable neighborhoods in Chicago. Single-family mansions were built by the upper class along the lake. Serving this group was the exclusive Saddle and Cycle Club, which relocated to Edgewater’s lakefront in 1898. The luxurious and sprawling Edgewater Beach Hotel (built in 1916; demolished in 1970) arrived later and stood prominently on the lake as a symbol of Edgewater’s prestige. Its partner, the iconic Edgewater Beach Apartments, still stands and was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1994. The interior of Edgewater, including the Lakewood-Balmoral area, was an early enclave for the middle classes. Like Uptown, access to the Loop via rail service and by auto, by way of Lake Shore Drive, spurred the construction of residential hotels along the Winthrop-Kenmore corridor near the lake. Many of these were “common corridor” apartments that evolved in the 1950s and 1960s into SROs for the area’s large population of transients, mental health discharges, and the elderly. Lakefront mansions from the turn-of-the-century were demolished and replaced by multi-story apartments. Among these were the widely-debated and largely-unloved “4+1” variant, an idiosyncratic Chicago residential form that involves four stories of apartments over ground floor parking, which is typically exposed [Figure 7.3] (Goodyear 1969; Anonymous 1971). 289 As Ratcliffe explains, the “4+1” allowed a maximum building height permitted under city code using the cheapest required materials (Ratcliffe 1978). This translated into lower rents and lower-income tenants—a problem for a neighborhood trying to revitalize itself and attract higher-income residents. Again like Uptown, the reputation of Edgewater as an attractive neighborhood diminished over the course of the 1960s and 1970s in large part due to its lower-class or dependent population and its high-density apartments, even though in Edgewater these were localized in the neighborhood’s eastern portions near the lake. Figure 7.3: 5940 North Kenmore Avenue, a typical “4+1” apartment building (built 1961). Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. The Chicago Housing Authority’s proposal to introduce scattered-site housing units to Edgewater incited protests in the mid-1970s. Like Uptown, residents objected to what they perceived as the continued treatment of the neighborhood as a “dumping ground” for low-income, black families under the Gautreaux ruling of 1976 (Anonymous 290 1976). Moreover, the rehabilitation of dilapidated housing with both subsidized, belowmarket rate units and market-rate units, under a public-private program spearheaded by the Illinois Housing Development Authority, only served to fuel residents’ ire that the neighborhood was being “overburdened” by public housing (Brodt 1979; Mabley 1979; Lulkin 1980). Writing in her 1978 study of Edgewater, Ratcliffe noted that the neighborhood was at a crossroads. She attributed this in part to the physical characteristics of the CCA: “Edgewater, like other North Side communities is in a state of transition. It could become the next revitalized neighborhood or the next blighted area of Chicago. Alterations to the physical landscape are partially responsible for its present status” (Ratcliffe 1978, p. 5). Beginning in the 1980s, however, units in many of the more desirable apartment buildings along the lake were “deconverted” by developers into fewer, but larger, marketrate units (Knott 1982). Edgewater, along with Uptown and eight other Chicago neighborhoods, was highlighted in the Chicago Tribune as “neighborhoods ripe for renovation and bargain rehab buys” (Grossman 1983) and Lakewood-Balmoral, specifically, as one of the city’s “best-kept secrets” for rehabbers and investors (Grossman 1984, p. O1). Renovation and deconversion ostensibly served a legitimate planning purpose (dispersing concentrated population), but it was openly regarded as a way of displacing a poor and troublesome population and attracting new middle-class tenants. Recognizing the role of artists in this process of revitalization, several owners consciously “themed” their properties by earmarking them for a targeted class of residents. For example, apartments in the 105-unit building at 6165 North Winthrop Avenue were specifically leased to artists as part of an “artist-in-residence” program. Similar apartments appealing to writers and musicians were also planned (Swanson 1982). 291 While Edgewater as a whole struggled to attract new residents and investment, and to shed its negative reputation as an arm of the Uptown CCA, the LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville continued to represent an island of local stability. By the late1980s, new middle-class residents were settling in East Andersonville (the eastern portion of census tract 308) since adjacent Lakewood-Balmoral had become too expensive. And like Lakewood-Balmoral, the architecture of the neighborhood was considered a primary attractor: “The architecture in East Andersonville has been one of its major selling points. The city’s landmarks commission has identified five homes and one business as candidates for historic landmark designation” (Kerch 1988, p. 1F). Lakewood Balmoral/Andersonville became the source of local gentrification, which spilled over into adjacent areas. Brown-Saracino notes this progression of gentrification in her study of Andersonville and specifically calls out the designation of the LakewoodBalmoral Historic District of 1999 as a catalyst: “The gentrification [of Edgewater] has radiated from its recently designated historic district, Lakewood Balmoral…with its grand homes and tree-lined streets, next extending into central Andersonville (between the north-south arteries Broadway and Clark and the east-west arteries Foster and Bryn Mawr). However, property and rents in the areas west, north, and south of central Andersonville—home to more modest threeflats and single-family dwellings—are increasingly expensive, as newly landscaped yards, condominium construction, restorations, and high-end vehicles make readily apparent” (Brown-Saracino 2009, p. 39). 7.3 Population and Housing Changes Demographic, socioeconomic, and housing changes that are consistent with slow gentrification in Edgewater are readily apparent in the census data over the period from 1970 through 2000. [Table 7.2]. 292 Area Pop. Fam. Inc. Families Poverty Professionals White* Black* Hispanic* -21.12 Per Capita Income 88.82 Case study CCA Cluster City 21.36 -39.44 -41.86 157.38 -16.92 4.06 7.60 0.97 -16.05 -14.39 12.38 133.88 34.51 -15.89 72.05 2.92 -21.90 -34.47 -23.88 67.91 -62.39 -17.74 36.98 154.43 63.82 -36.97 -15.72 -45.45 16.77 3.53 -3.50 11.68 0.73 202.97 Table 7.2:Percent change in key demographic variables in LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville (Edgewater) case study and aggregated for Lincoln Park CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (percent change unless noted), 1970-2000. *=’change in the percent of.’ The detailed data included in the tables below [Tables 7.3-7.8] reveal the changing demographics and housing in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville, the Edgewater CCA, the PCA cluster, and in Chicago for the period 1970-2000. Per capita income in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville grew by nearly 90% over this period, a larger increase than that of the CCA and city as a whole but smaller than the cluster [Table 7.3]. In 1970 the per capital income in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville was lower than that of the Edgewater CCA, yet thirty years later it had easily surpassed it. Growth in family income was stronger in the case study than in both the CCA (which showed a loss of 15%) and the city. Area Case study CCA mean Cluster mean City mean Per Capita Income (1970) $18,067 $21,158 $16,819 $14,804 Per Capita Income (2000) Per Capita Income Change Family Income (1970) Family Income (2000) Family Income Change $34,114 $23,777 $39,578 $19,912 88.82% 12.38% 133.88% 34.51% $52,337 $53,368 $44,701 $44,907 $63,514 $44,888 $76,910 $46,221 21.36% -15.89% 72.05% 2.92% Table 7.3: Per Capita Income and Family Income in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, one of the key indicators of a gentrifying neighborhood is growth in the professional sector. Change in the number of professionals in LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville dwarfs that of the CCA and the city and is comparable to that of the cluster [Table 7.4]. Decline in residents employed in manufacturing is also apparent at all geographic scales. 293 Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Professionals (1970) 711 10,212 62,821 246,725 Professionals (2000) 1,830 13,988 159,836 404,192 Professionals Change 157.38% 36.98% 154.43% 68.82% Manufacturers (1970) 699 6,671 64,687 397,593 Manufacturers (2000) 228 2,773 20,655 158,254 Manufacturers Change -67.38% -58.43% -68.06% -60.19% Table 7.4: Professionals and Manufacturers in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. The number of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville families living at or below the poverty rate declined by nearly 42%, as compared with declines in the cluster (62%) and city (17%) [Table 7.5]. Poverty grew at the scale of the CCA and likely reflects the introduction of scattered-site public housing. The number of households on public assistance income (PAI) grew slightly in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville in terms of absolute numbers—nine families in 1970 versus sixteen in 2000. Growth in the number of PAI households in the CCA far surpassed the CCA, the cluster (which showed a loss), and even the city. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Families in Poverty (1970) 86 1,016 19,412 128,257 Families in Poverty (2000) 50 1,706 7,301 105,509 Families in Poverty Change -41.86% 67.91% -62.39% -17.73% PAI Households (1970) PAI Households (2000) PAI Households Change 9 249 7,675 49,517 16 1,268 5,825 72,877 77.78% 409.24% -24.10% 47.17% Table 7.5: Families in Poverty and Public Assistance Income (PAI) Households in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. Rents in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville grew at a rate greater than both the CCA and city but are lower than those of the cluster [Table 7.6]. In terms of housing values, the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville neighborhood saw an increase of 224% over the period 1970-2000. This surpasses the rates of change seen at the scale of the CCA, cluster, and city. The Edgewater CCA performed less well by this measure than Chicago as a whole, although housing values were still greater in the CCA than citywide both in 1970 and in 2000. Tract/ Area Median Median Median 294 Median Median Median Case study CCA mean Cluster mean City mean Gross Rent (1970) Gross Rent (2000) Gross Rent Change $590 $625 $513 $545 $824 $649 $790 $6129 39.61% 3.92% 53.99% 13.08% Value Owner-Occ. Housing (1970) $105,328 $107,295 $93,146 $86,021 Value Owner-Occ. Housing (2000) $341,500 $191,122 $282,912 $164,525 Value Owner-Occ. Housing Change 224.23% 78.13% 203.72% 91.26% Table 7.6: Median Gross Monthly Rent and Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (dollar values and percent change), 1970-2000. 1970 dollar values adjusted for inflation. As evidence for the relative stability of housing in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville, the total number of units in the neighborhood remained virtually unchanged between 1970 and 2000 [Table 7.7]. The Edgewater CCA and cluster both saw slight growth in this area while the city showed a decline. For reasons that are unclear, housing vacancy in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville showed more dramatic increases than either the CCA or city. However, these numbers are comparatively small: a change of only thirty-five units over the course of the thirty-year period. These vacant units may simply have been on the market during the census data collection period, either in newly constructed buildings or renovated existing ones. Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total Housing Units (1970) 2,279 30,519 242,050 1,206,730 Housing Units (2000) 2,331 32,716 252,797 1,144,103 Housing Units Change 0.02% 7.20% 4.44% -5.18% Vacant Units (1970) Vacant Units (2000) 81 1,674 22,297 70,347 116 1,843 15,424 90,339 Vacant Units Change 43.21% 10.10% -30.82% 28.41% Table 7.7: Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units in Sheridan Park case study tract, Uptown CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. Changes in the housing tenure data revealed a general trend towards greater homeownership at all three geographic scales [Table 7.8]. However, change in the CCA (107%) is far greater than that of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville (22%), cluster (50%), or city (16%). With respect to the relatively slow increase of homeownership in the case study neighborhood, this reflects a population that is already comprised of 295 homeowners. The decrease in renters is consistent with this. Renter-occupied units in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville declined at a slower rate than in the CCA, cluster, and Chicago. The general increase in homeowners and concomitant decline in renters was noted by several observers of Edgewater’s changing conditions. For example, local lawyer and community activist Horace Fox noted in an 2013 interview that …there are a couple of changes over the years. Things have obviously become more expensive. And that means that we have a smaller allotment of housing that is available to renters. I think that is detrimental to the community… Well, I think that as housing prices have gone up. It cuts out a segment of the population that we value, renters (Edgewater Historical Society 2013). Tract/ Area Case study CCA total Cluster total City total OwnerOccupied (1970) 642 4,685 35,946 396,104 OwnerOccupied (2000) 786 9,701 85,914 460,755 OwnerOccupied Change 22.43% 107.07% 50.56% 16.32% RenterOccupied (1970) 1,556 24,135 183,598 739,844 RenterOccupied (2000) 1,429 21,172 151,459 593,011 RenterOccupied Change -8.16% -12.28% -17.51% -19.84% Table 7.8: Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units in LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville case study tract, Edgewater CCA, PCA cluster, and City of Chicago (counts and percent change), 1970-2000. 7.4 Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville Case Study Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville (tract 308) is located on Chicago’s far north side and is approximately square-shaped, bounded by West Bryn Mawr Avenue on the north, North Broadway on the east, West Foster Avenue on the south, and North Clark Street on the west. It sits near the center of the Edgewater CCA and straddles two neighborhoods [Figure 7.4]. Roughly the eastern half is Lakewood-Balmoral, a primarily residential neighborhood of single-family homes and duplexes. To the west of this, between North Wayne Avenue and the western border of the census tract, is the eastern section of the Andersonville neighborhood—sometimes referred to as “East Andersonville” [Figure 7.5]. 296 Figure 7.4: Map of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville (Tract 308), Edgewater CCA. 297 Figure 7.5: Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville census tract with Lakewood-Balmoral and Andersonville neighborhoods indicated. The Lakewood-Balmoral section of the case study tract was originally platted in 1890 under the name “Cochran's Third Addition to Edgewater,” after the area’s original developer, John Lewis Cochran. Cochran’s hand was, and still is, readily apparent in the neighborhood. Because of a twenty-year covenant dictating the types of buildings that could be built in his subdivision, virtually all are single-family homes—the physical manifestation of the suburban environment he sought to create. “Flats” and “tenement buildings” were expressly prohibited by Cochran. The developer’s covenant also dictated the form that houses would take and their siting on their respective lots. Maximum set-backs and building heights were established to maintain a uniform, suburban streetscape [Figure 7.6]. With its wide streets and paved sidewalks, Cochran promoted his modern new development as “the only electric lighted suburb adjacent to Chicago” (cited in DeBat 1994, p. 30). 298 Figure 7.6: Uniform streetscape along the 5400 block of North Lakewood Avenue. Source: author. The streets that run through the neighborhood—Balmoral, Berwyn, Bryn Mawr, and Magnolia—themselves were named after Main Line railway stops in Cochran’s native Philadelphia (National Register of Historic Places 1999). The end result was a decidedly suburban neighborhood, one that retained its bucolic feel even after it was incorporated into the City of Chicago and a denser, less architecturally uniform city grew around it. The Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District sits completely within Cochran’s original subdivision [Figure 7.7]. 299 WAYNE OLIVE RI DG E C LAR K BRYN MAWR GREGO RY CATALPA BROADWAY MAGNO LIA LAKEWO OD WAYNE BALMO RAL GLENW OOD RASCHE R SUMMERDALE BERWYN FARRA GUT FOSTE R WINON A ´ Figure 7.7: Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study (yellow polygon), LakewoodBalmoral Historic District (purple polygon). The suburban quality of the latter is evident when compared to the more urban surroundings. Source (aerial imagery): Illinois Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. The western half of the case study, between North Glenwood Avenue and North Clark Street—the only two north-south streets within this area—is occupied by higherdensity residences. This area, primarily a part of the Andersonville neighborhood, was outside of Cochran’s Third Addition and unburdened by restrictions that stipulated the construction of single-family homes set back from the street. Thus, duplexes and two300 and three-flats are common here, as are multi-unit apartment buildings [Figures 7.87.9]. Most of the houses here are oriented north-south and contrast to those to the east, which uniformly face east or west. Figure 7.8: Three-flats on the 5300 block of North Glenwood Avenue. Source: author. 301 Figure 7.9: Multi-unit apartment building at 1443 West Balmoral Avenue. Source: Cook County Assessor’s Office. North Broadway represents the primary commercial artery through LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville on the east. North Clark Street is its equivalent to the west; this latter street serves as the commercial heart of the Andersonville neighborhood. Besides residences and retail, there are very few other land uses present in the LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville neighborhood. An exception is the Helen C. Peirce School of International Studies, an elementary magnet school in the Chicago Public Schools system located at the northwest corner of the case study area. Several churches are also located at various places throughout the neighborhood. An examination of the decadal changes in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study area reveals several trends consistent with the process of gentrification. The racial makeup of the area shows a loss in the white population in the 1970s (27%) that gradually slows as time progresses (9% in the 1980s, 3% in the 1990s) [Table 7.9]. The black population booms in the 1970s (1,657%) and grows more slowly during the 1980s (134%). It shows decline in the final decade of the 1990s (31%). Similarly, the Hispanic 302 population’s strongest increase is during the first decade (123%); losses accelerate in the two decades that follow (3% in the 1980s and 18% in the 1990s). 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 White -1,471 -365 -109 White % -27.08% -9.21% -3.03% Black 116 166 -92 Black % 1,657.14% 134.96% -31.83% Hispanic 460 -29 -151 Hispanic % 123.99% -3.49% -18.83% Table 7.9: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Race (absolute and percent change). Growth in the number of college graduates and professionals—two strong indicators for social upgrading in gentrifying neighborhoods—peaks in the 1980s (102%) before slowing in the 1990s [Table 7.10]. The slowing increase of college graduates is particularly acute during this latter decade (18%). A decline in Edgewater’s residents who work in manufacturing shows a steady intensification from single digits in the 1970s (3%) to double-digits in the following two decades (33% and 49%). This is part of the longitudinal process of deindustrialization across Chicago. 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 College Grads. 386 872 324 College Grads. % 83.55% 102.83% 18.84% Professionals 146 404 569 Professionals % 20.53% 47.14% 45.12% Manufacturers -24 -223 -224 Manufacturers % -3.43% -33.04% -49.56% Table 7.10: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Education and Employment Characteristics (absolute and percent change). Per capita income in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville shows a steady increase over the period 1970-2000 with increases of 2%, 27%, and 44% [Table 7.11]. While decline in family income is evident in the earliest decade (13%), it grows in the 1980s (21%) before slowing in the 1990s (15%). Poverty increases over the first two decades by 2% and 18%, respectively, and decreases in the third by 51%. As the absolute values for the variables indicate, these poverty numbers are relatively small—an increase of two and sixteen families in the respective decades. Per Capita Per Capita Family 303 Family Poverty Poverty % 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Income $478 $5,036 $10,534 Income % 2.64% 27.15% 44.67% Income -6,839 $9,705 $8,311 Income % -13.07% 21.33% 15.06% 2 16 -54 2.33% 18.18% -51.92% Table 7.11: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Income and Poverty (absolute and percent change). The number of housing units in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville grows and shrinks over the period 1970-2000 and likely reflects several factors [Table 7.12]. One possible factor is that affordable housing programs, particularly those that rehabilitated existing housing units (as opposed to building anew), reduced population through deconversion of subdivided units and the creation of larger units for market-rate housing in mixed buildings. Demolition is likely not the cause of this decline in housing units. Newspaper articles from the 1980s, when housing shrunk by 161 units, do not mention rampant tear-down activity in Edgewater. Furthermore, a visual inspection of buildings in the case study area reveals few pre-war intrusions. Growth in the value of housing and rent both peaked in the 1980s. Total Units 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 162 -141 31 Total Units % 7.11% -5.78% 1.35% Median Value $68,609 $162,805 $4,758 Median Value % 65.14% 93.60% 1.41% Gross Rent -$6 $114 $126 Gross Rent % -1.06% 19.55% 18.03% Table 7.12: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Units, Median Value, and Gross Rent (absolute and percent change) Finally, homeownership increased dramatically over the final decade from 19902000. Rental units show a steady decline in the last two decades after a fairly dramatic increase of 119 units during the 1970s [Table 7.13]. 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 Owner Housing Units 7 3 134 Owner Housing Units % 1.09% 0.46% 20.55% Renter Housing Units 36 -119 -44 Renter Housing Units % 2.31% -7.47% -2.99% Vacant Units Vacant Units % 119 -25 -59 146.91% -12.50% -33.71% Table 7.13: Decadal Changes in Case Study Tract: Housing Tenure (absolute and percent change). Though joined to Uptown through the Winthrop-Kenmore corridor, and subsumed into the Uptown CCA between 1930 and 1980, Edgewater nevertheless developed along 304 a different trajectory than its neighbor to the south. Perhaps most importantly, it avoided the disinvestment and class conflict that characterized the experience of Uptown through most of the latter half of the 20th century. This was accomplished through a dual approach of neighborhood promotion and active opposition to public housing (Joravsky 1990). A 1987 article in the Chicago Tribune captured the uneasy relationship between Uptown and Edgewater, as well as with adjacent East Rogers Park to the north: “Some neighborhoods near Uptown have so far escaped much of the [class] conflict. In Edgewater, the community directly to the north, the middle class built a reasonably powerful political base, denying an opening to organizers like [affordable housing advocate “Slim”] Coleman. In East Rogers Park, another nearby community on the lake, property values are not low enough to make the area attractive to developers interested in a quick return. ‘A return is the main consideration for investors,’ Reynolds said. ‘In Edgewater, it`s beautiful, and then you cross Foster Avenue [in Uptown] and you`re in what looks like a battle zone. In East Rogers Park, the costs are too high. Uptown is different’ (Kass 1987n. pag). Distinguishing Edgewater from Uptown and promoting its “beauty” was initially tied to the promotion of the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District and its uniquely suburban character. At the same time, the nearby Andersonville section of Edgewater engaged in a promotional effort centered on the area’s Swedish heritage. Working in tandem, these two history-related forces were responsible for the continued interest and investment in Edgewater and its eventual upgrading. 7.5 Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Redevelopment in Uptown The 1970s and 1980s saw no preservation activity in Lakewood- Balmoral/Andersonville, only an increasing awareness of Andersonville’s Swedish heritage and the history of the neighborhood in general. Yet by the 1990s, historic preservation had begun to play a significant role in revitalizing and gentrifying Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville and the greater Edgewater CCA (Brown-Saracino 2009). However, preservation was driven by different forces than those at work in 305 Lincoln Park and Uptown. It also occurred chronologically later than in either of these neighborhoods to its south. Although Edgewater’s “historical conscience” was highly developed and articulated by the Edgewater Historical Society, it was only in the mid1990s that historic preservation was actively engaged as a means of protecting the neighborhood from physical and social change and promoting it as a desirable place to live. If gentrification in the Sheridan Park neighborhood of Uptown was facilitated by developers rehabilitating rental units using the Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, and converting other apartment buildings into condominiums, then LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville stands in marked contrast as a neighborhood gentrified by owners rehabilitating and upgrading their own homes. This is an important distinction and one that reflects, in large part, the different morphologies of each neighborhood. Multi-unit apartment buildings dominate much of Uptown. In contrast, single-family houses are common in Edgewater, particularly in the Lakewood-Balmoral area. Indeed, within the comparatively small, twelve-block Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District, the Historic Tax Assessment Freeze program has been used to rehabilitate approximately fifteen historic residential properties, most of them single-family homes [Figures 7.107.12]. In each case, the idiosyncratic architectural fabric of the neighborhood impacted the nature of upgrading that occurred within it. This critical facet of the upgrading process—its responsiveness to many diverse forms found in an urban landscape—has been demonstrated in the context of other cities experiencing gentrification, Houston among them (Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). 306 Figure 7.10: Tax credit and tax assessment freeze projects in the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District (indicated by white hatched polygon). 307 Figure 7.11: House at 5459 North Lakewood Avenue. Tax assessment freeze project. Source: author. Figure 7.12: House at 5255 North Lakewood Avenue. Tax assessment freeze project. Source: author. The Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study area is home to a single historic district, the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District. This twelve-block residential district, medium in size when compared to others in Chicago, was listed in the National 308 Register of Historic Places in 1999. Spearheading the listing was the LakewoodBalmoral Residents’ Council (LBRC), successor to the land use and zoning-oriented Lakewood-Balmoral Zonal Center founded in the 1940s (Murphy 1954; Britton 1979) and one of approximately fifteen block clubs in Edgewater. The LBRC’s roots were in zoning and land use. It came together in the 1960s to stave off an attempt by a local church to demolish two single-family homes for use as a parking lot by its congregation (Ratcliffe 1978). The National Register nomination itself was a collaborative effort that involved LBRC and the Historic District Committee of the Edgewater Historical Society, as well as paid student researchers enrolled in the public history program at nearby Loyola University of Chicago. Ted Karamanski, a history professor at Loyola, helped oversee the early nomination work. The boundaries of the historic district were drawn in such a way as to capture Cochran’s subdivision and minimize higher-density residential and non-residential uses at the periphery. The National Register nomination lays out the justification in this way: The boundaries of the proposed historic district do not include the west side of Broadway and the east side of Glenwood. These two streets have been excluded for two different reasons. First, the west side of Broadway has been redeveloped as a commercial street and it has retained very few of the residential buildings from the period of significance. Its integrity is not sufficient for inclusion in the district. Second, the east side of Glenwood is of a different character than the predominantly single family home/duplex town house streetscapes within the district. It consists entirely of two and three flats. Its development is of a slightly later time period when [developer] Cochran's 1890 covenants were not being strictly enforced, and speculation construction of higher density multiple family housing filled the entire four block area. Therefore, it is not proposed for inclusion in the district (National Register of Historic Places 1999, sec. 7, p.2). However, the borders were also determined in part not by circumstances of history but by more pragmatic matters. Residents in the East Andersonville portion of the proposed district expressed concerns about the designation and requested to be 309 excluded (Gemperle 1999). The borders were thus redrawn to omit residents along the district’s western extent at North Glenwood Avenue. As in Lincoln Park and other Chicago neighborhoods, the presence of the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District (and the selfsame neighborhood) is advertised physically through streetlamp-mounted signs and occasional house plaques—the latter at the discretion of each property owner [Figures 7.13-7.14]. Figure 7.13: Lakewood-Balmoral neighborhood sign with founding date and date listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Source: author. 310 Figure 7.14: Wall-mounted National Register plaque at 5239 North Wayne Avenue, Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District. Source: author. The single-family houses within the district represent an eclectic range of late19th and early-20th century styles, including Queen Anne, Shingle Style, Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, Craftsman, and Prairie School, as well as an assorted mixture of vernacular forms (National Register of Historic Places 1999). Pre-war buildings in these architectural styles are often tremendously complex structures, intricately ornamented, and because of their high degrees of craftsmanship, rare: they would be extremely costly to replicate today. This was precisely the reason gentrifiers in the last quarter of the 20th century sought these buildings out (Jager 1986; Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). Their craftsmanship and bespoke character (even though many were constructed from plan books) were starkly oppositional to the machine-made buildings produced en masse after World War II. The homes of the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District were built on larger, “suburban”-sized lots of thirty to fifty feet in width, much wider than the standard city lot of twenty-five feet. Setbacks from the right-of-way were substantial and a consistency of façade heights and building densities—again, mandated under the subdivision 311 covenant—created a unified streetscape on many of the neighborhood blocks. Unlike the homes built closer to the lake, which were marketed to the upper classes, the Lakewood-Balmoral subdivision represents a shift to middle class clientele and their domestic tastes and comparatively modest purchasing power. This neighborhood, in contrast to Sheridan Park in the Uptown CCA, is characterized by a piecemeal gentrification process driven by individual homeowners. “Sweat equity” undoubtedly played a role here, but so too do the public subsidization of rehabilitation work taken on by homeowners under the State’s tax assessment freeze program. Though the historic district retains a high degree of physical integrity—that is, the individual buildings and the neighborhood as a whole look much as they did when first developed—it was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places for its historical associations. It was recognized as a significant early example of community planning and development. According to the National Register nomination, Lakewood-Balmoral set a new standard for development on Chicago’s north side, contributing a more suburban setting than found elsewhere in the city’s earlier neighborhoods to the south (National Register of Historic Places 1999). The gentrification of a historic neighborhood acknowledged for its suburban characteristics is a rarely explored condition in the existing body of literature. Like Uptown, the Edgewater CCA has long been renowned for the diversity and strength of its various residents’ organizations. This includes a confederation of fifteen block clubs, as well as numerous condominium associations, religious groups, social service groups, and an active chamber of commerce (Anonymous 1982). Atop this heap is the Edgewater Community Council, a blanket organization representing the CCA in its entirety. This council was chartered in 1960 (Ratcliffe 1978). In a 1981 Chicago Tribune article, Ratcliffe was quoted as describing the presence of active neighborhood 312 organizations as the foundation for revitalization and gentrification in Chicago’s neighborhoods: “If there’s an active network of community groups, businessmen, churches, and other institutions, there’s a possibility of revitalization… If, however, local community leadership is nil, businesses are third rate, and churches are weak and anemic, there is no neighborhood. All you have is a piece of turf” (Ibata 1981, p. A1). Edgewater differs from Uptown in that local history has played a much stronger role in the promotion and revitalization of the CCA. The Edgewater Historical Society, founded in 1988, is one of the most active and engaged local history-oriented groups in greater Chicagoland. This volunteer group helped drive the listing of the LakewoodBalmoral National Register district beginning in the mid-1990s and has promoted the use of various preservation financial incentives that were made available following the district’s designation. As in Lincoln Park, walking, building, and garden tours are organized annually by the group to showcase rehabilitated buildings within the historic district and the greater neighborhood. While historical awareness and education are still driving motivations for these efforts, an unspoken, ancillary outcome would be the fostering of similar rehabilitation work and upkeep throughout the neighborhood. The Edgewater Historical Society has also advocated for the creation of additional National Register districts as well as local historic districts through the City of Chicago’s landmarks program. These latter efforts are seen as a way to deter demolitions that would compromise the fabric of the neighborhood. The historical society has also offered financial and technical support to property owners, particularly those unconvinced of the worthiness of historic preservation, and individual society members have supported the neighborhood by writing op-ed pieces in the local newspapers (for example, see Blommaert 1998). Across Chicago, there is perhaps no other neighborhood-level volunteer group so sophisticated in its promotion of local 313 history and historic preservation. As the president of the group succinctly expressed in 2001, “It is the mission of the Edgewater Historical Society to educate the community on its own history and work towards the preservation of that history” (Gemperle 2001, p. 2). As the popularity of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville and Edgewater grew over the period 1970-2000, residents expressed concerns that the area might follow in the footsteps of Lincoln Park. Gentrification and displacement and the creation of a “gilded ghetto” were commonly expressed causes for concern. Visual signs of change could be seen in the neighborhood’s population that suggested a demographic transformation was at work. Over the course of the period from 1970 through 2000, white decline in the neighborhood steadily slowed—although during this period in it never achieved net growth. Black growth slowed in the 1980s and declined in absolute numbers in the 1990s. Hispanic decline began a decade earlier, in the 1980s, and accelerated in the following decade. By 2000 Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville was still racially mixed, but its white population showed signs of stabilization. Blacks and Hispanics were increasingly leaving the neighborhood, as in Lincoln Park. The employment makeup of neighborhood residents was also changing. The number of college graduates and professionals in the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville neighborhood increased steadily during the 1970s and 1980s. Growth continued for both in the 1990s, but at a slower rate among the former group. Accordingly, per capita income steadily increased in each of the three decades. Poverty grew through the 1970s and 1980s but was reduced by half in the 1990s. Perhaps the most noteworthy change in the neighborhood was in its housing. The value of housing units increased during the 1970s and 1980s before slowing in the 1990s. Rents also increased during the 1980s and 1990s. Homeownership increased dramatically in the 1990s after the previous two decades showed little change. This 314 reflects the already strong base of homeowners who occupied the single-family homes in Cochran’s original subdivision—the present-day Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District. At the same time, the number of renters decreased during the 1980s and 1990s. This possibly reflects the mounting costs of renting in the neighborhood over the same two decades. In her 1978 study of Edgewater, Ratcliffe detected changes that could be harbingers of such a transformation. She noted a trend both of social and physical upgrading: “The post-World War II baby boom has contributed greatly of the number of people entering the housing market at this time. People in their 30’s are the most active in the rehabilitation of older homes in Edgewater and other Chicago communities. According to experts, this trend toward preservation of older dwellings in the central city will continue. The number of small unit buildings and single family homes in Edgewater, as well as the community’s attractive location, will add to its popularity. Skyrocketing land prices beyond the budget of these young buyers is about the only factor which will deter them” (Ratcliffe 1978, p. 96). Ultimately Ratcliffe conceded that the displacement of middle-income residents is a likely by-product of this upgrading process, and asked a germane question: “How does a community improve without displacing present residents?” (Ratcliffe 1978, p. 97). The Edgewater CCA never declined to the extent that Uptown did. Moreover, within Edgewater, certain neighborhoods—Lakewood-Balmoral foremost among them— never physically deteriorated to a significant extent or suffered from arson or abandonment as other neighborhoods in Chicago had. This is reflected in the historic district’s current physical state, which is very much like it was when developer Cochran established the subdivision in the late 1800s. Unlike Lincoln Park in particular, there has been only a limited amount of post-World War II construction [Figures 7.15-7.16]. Individual buildings have suffered from deferred maintenance—the “haunted house” 315 factor, as described in the Chicago Sun-Times (Rotzoll 1988)—but tear-downs have been virtually nonexistent, even outside of the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District. Figure 7.15: 5448 North Lakewood Avenue (built 1966). Source: author. Figure 7.16: 5536 North Glenwood Avenue (built 2001). Source: author. As described in an earlier chapter, tear-downs and new construction have severely compromised the historic fabric of Lincoln Park, as well as intensified building 316 densities and elevated property taxes and rents beyond the reach of many existing and potential residents. Long-time Edgewater community organizer Marge Britton noted the pernicious nature of incremental demolition in a 2014 interview with the Edgewater Historical Society: I think a strengthening in the consciousness of the historic district, in the historic buildings, is necessary. There is a house in Lakewood-Balmoral that is slated to come down because it has structural problems, various problems that are, over a hundred years old… those houses… and the people who bought it don’t want to rehab it. They want to take it down. I think that that’s the beginning of something that I would not like to see happen… one house, maybe okay. But if the idea is degenerated further we may see more demolitions. And I think that is a problem (Edgewater Historical Society 2014, n. pag). Instead of demolition and new construction, signs of gentrification in the Lakewood-Balmoral case study tract include a familiar visual indicator of traditional gentrification: meticulously maintained and refurbished houses. This, of course, is evidence for continued capital reinvestment in the real estate of the neighborhood that began in the 1980s and has continued since. Indeed, a Chicago Sun-Times headline noted in 1990 that “Rehabbers Find Edgewater a Fountain of Youth” (DeBat 1990). Realtor and former alderman (1978-1987) Marion Volini of the 48th Ward reflected on these changes in an interview with the Edgewater Historical Society in 2012: …Edgewater is going to continue to thrive and to become one of the most desirable communities in the city, but [we] are always going to be facing new problems related to old issues. If you look at Lakewood Balmoral…when I moved there [in 1957], these wonderful old Victorian homes were pretty much in need of recovery, rehabilitation and recovery in many ways. The gardens were basically tended, but they weren’t what they are today. Today, being in Real Estate I can tell you, many of those homes sell for over a million dollars, some close to 2 million. It’s just the most desirable neighborhood on the north side of Chicago. It is a small, 12 block square enclave of families that love the city, the way we all do, who thrive on diversity and who want to be downtown in 20 minutes rather than taking a two hour drive from the suburbs (Edgewater Historical Society 2012, n. pag). 317 By the early-1990s, the Chicago Tribune was noting anecdotally that “Rents throughout Edgewater vary from block to block, depending on the street, building and landlord. Many of Edgewater`s older apartments have been rehabbed in the past decade, pushing rents slightly higher in some cases and out-of-sight in others” (Edwards 1990n. pag). The Chicago Sun-Times described Edgewater as teetering on “the edge of prosperity,” noting the rehabilitation work of homeowners in Lakewood-Balmoral as evidence for this newfound prosperity (Garb 1992). Accessibility to the Loop and the vintage homes and “Painted Ladies” of Lakewood-Balmoral—prized as expressions of individuality—were also cited as reasons for Edgewater’s prosperity (DeBat 1994; Rotzoll 1997). By the end of the decade, with the designation of the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District underway, the pace of sales and price of houses in the neighborhood had skyrocketed (Pitt 1998). Some observers described these changes as a symptom of “incumbent upgrading”: the increasing affluence of existing residents in situ (Cassidy 1980). Writing in 1992, Jakle concluded that incumbent upgrading best characterized the socioeconomic changes evident in the Edgewater CCA. Nevertheless, he noted that gentrification was following closely on its heels and that residential displacement was already underway: Incumbent upgrading appears to be successful in Chicago’s Edgewater, but gentrification may already be hard on its heels. Renters have given way to owners through extensive conversion of apartments to condominiums, producing inflated property values… Residential displacement has increasingly unfolded. The neighborhood currently shows visible signs of gentrification: trendy restaurants, boutiques, overpriced specialty stores, and the like. The irony here is that incumbent upgrading may fail to halt neighborhood upgrading and be destroyed by its own success. Incumbent upgrading often sets the stage for gentrification (Jakle and Wilson 1992, pp. 251-252). 318 This speaks to a central issue in this dissertation: the diversity of forms witnessed in the gentrification process. In the case of LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville in Edgewater, the nature of capital reinvestment and the agents involved were much different than in Lincoln Park or in the Sheridan Park neighborhood of Uptown. Homeowners in the Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District, and the block group that represented them, were instrumental in promoting historic preservation locally; the forces that drove the process of upgrading were thus primarily endogenous. In the Sheridan Park Historic District, larger-scale developers from outside the neighborhood played a central role. In Lincoln Park’s Sheffield Historic District it was a combination of smallscale developers, community organizations, and homeowners whose influence in the neighborhood shifted over time. By 2000 local newspapers were acknowledging Edgewater’s ascendance and how it might join the ranks of Lincoln Park and other hyper-gentrified neighborhoods. In 2002, the Chicago Tribune reported that “many renters and potential condo buyers [were fleeing] Lincoln Park and Lake View for the more economically slanted Andersonville, Uptown, Edgewater and Rogers Park neighborhoods, these northern enclaves… becoming more gentrified and attractive even to some trendies” (Buck 2002n. pag). Among the migrants from Lake View, specifically, were significant numbers of gay men. Saracino-Brown noted that “as rising home prices pushed gay men out of the city’s “Boystown”’ many moved north to Andersonville, thereby contributing to the outpricing of some remaining lesbians,” many lesbians having already been displaced by rising costs (Brown-Saracino 2009, pp. 38-39). Enough lesbians had settled in the Andersonville part of Edgewater in the decades prior that the neighborhood had earned the nickname “Girls Town” (Guy 2013). By 2004, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that the “young 319 singles, couples and families” flocking to Edgewater and its “vintage homes,” new developments along the lake, and new retail space, was helping the spurring the neighborhood’s resurgence and helping it to regain its “past glory” (Busk 2004, p. 1). As in the case of Uptown, the increasingly affluent middle-class of Edgewater began to attack local social service organizations that assisted the neighborhood’s dependent population. Jakle noted that to “protect and enhance property, affluent residents have turned against the less affluent by attacking the institutions that permitted low-income residency” (Jakle and Wilson 1992, p. 252). 7.6 Conclusion The Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study reveals the role of historic preservation in helping to solidify and upgrade a “suburban” neighborhood of already middle-class homeowners, late in the period 1970-2000. In 1970 the neighborhood was home to nearly triple the number of professionals in 1970 (nearly 26%) found in the other two neighborhoods and was highest in terms of both per capita and family income. It also had one-fourth the number of the families living in poverty. LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville has many of the same amenities as Lincoln Park and Uptown, including easy access to the Loop and handcrafted, historic architecture generally considered desirable among gentrifiers. But the housing stock in this neighborhood differs from that of the others in two primary respects: its morphology and its tenurial makeup. In terms of neighborhood morphology, Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville is more suburban in its density and character, with free-standing, single-family homes executed in a variety of domestic styles popular in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. This sets it apart from other gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago and reiterates a central theme in this research: that gentrification occurs in a breadth of neighborhoods with diverse 320 building forms and styles. To be sure, Lincoln Park also has many freestanding, singlefamily homes. But the character of that neighborhood has never been described as “suburban” in the way Edgewater has. The Sheridan Park neighborhood of Uptown, with its preponderance of multi-unit apartments and decidedly more urban look and feel, represents another type of upgrading neighborhood, one that is denser and more urban in its feel. A second facet of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville that sets it apart is the tenurial makeup of its housing. Unlike Sheridan Park in Uptown, which is comprised of significant numbers of multi-unit rental apartments, Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville is a neighborhood of homeowners. Of the three case study neighborhoods, it had more owner-occupied housing units in 1970 (nearly 30%) than either Lincoln Park (15%) or Uptown (4%). Rental units in the neighborhood also commanded the highest rents of the three case study neighborhoods in 1970. The various local organizations—block club, historical society, residents’ council—have provided homeowners with multiple voices in the community and in the city at large. The secession of Edgewater from the Uptown CCA in 1980 is perhaps the clearest example of this. But the divergent trajectories of the two neighborhoods are also evident in the historic preservation incentives used in each: tax credits for incomeproducing properties in Uptown, tax assessment freeze projects for owner-occupied residences in Edgewater. In Uptown, historic preservation and the use of the historic tax credit program were encouraged by developers, many of them non-residents. In Edgewater, local community organizations popularized the use of the historic preservation tax assessment freeze program among homeowners and supported historic preservation generally. The result was two neighborhoods following two different paths to gentrification. Lincoln Park followed a third. This is perhaps best illustrated in the 321 median housing values of all three case study neighborhoods in 1970. In that year, Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville in Edgewater and Sheridan Park in Uptown were virtually identical at $105,000, while Lincoln Park values were only $59,000. By 2000, values in Lincoln Park had increased by 659% and Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville by 224%. Sheridan Park, however, had appreciated by only 113%. Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville is particularly interesting as a case study as it touches upon a largely ignored area in the gentrification research: suburban gentrification. This topic has received little attention until recently (Lanyi Charles 2011). To be sure, Edgewater is urban in the sense that it is part of the third largest city in the United States and has a mixed land use base and higher densities than most suburbs. Yet it is still markedly different than the Lincoln Park and Uptown case studies in this dissertation—to say nothing of the quintessential gentrified brownstone neighborhoods of Brooklyn, the loft districts of Lower Manhattan, or the neighborhoods of Federal style rowhouses of Georgetown. Indeed, the National Register nomination captures this unique quality when it describes Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District as “a discrete assemblage of late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings, which together comprise an intact example of early suburban development in Chicago” (National Register of Historic Places 1999, sec. 7, p. 1). Similar neighborhoods exist in Chicago— Beverly, for example—but they tend to be of more recent, albeit pre-war, vintage. The Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District is remarkably intact for a turn-of-thecentury neighborhood in a major American city that was radically transformed through urban renewal and disinvestment during the 1950s and 1960s. While a lack of financial wherewithal helped protect Uptown’s Sheridan Park neighborhood from the characterchanging alterations and demolitions seen in other poor areas in Chicago, LakewoodBalmoral/Andersonville’s steadfast middle class—with its middle-class interest in history 322 and historic architecture—helped preserve its original suburban charms. New construction was virtually non-existent during the 1970s and 1980s and only picked up in the 1990s, as demand for housing reduced the number of vacant units in the neighborhood. Deterioration is evident in the greater Edgewater CCA, but only in a comparatively isolated area near the lake and along the Winthrop-Kenmore corridor. Moreover, the real estate pressures of the early-2000s that transformed Lincoln Park are not in evidence in Edgewater, at least not to the same degree. Developers have not expanded existing buildings and tear-downs have been piecemeal. This, of course, has been a defining characteristic of the Lincoln Park case study neighborhood, where real estate is at a premium and demands for redevelopment intense. 323 Chapter 8: Conclusions 8.1 Research Overview The overarching goal of this dissertation was to better understand the relationship between historic preservation and gentrification and how these forces have differentially shaped neighborhoods in Chicago over the period 1970-2000. It asked the questions: 1) to what extent is there evidence of diversity and complexity in the gentrification processes in Chicago where there have also been high levels of historic preservation activity?; and 2) what are some of the fundamental characteristics of these gentrification processes? More broadly, have historic preservation programs been facilitating gentrification in Chicago? In some circumstances they have, as seen in cases where the financial incentives for developers have facilitated capital reinvestment within neighborhoods. Sheridan Park in the Uptown CCA is an illustrative example of this. But this is not so in all cases. In Lincoln Park, for example, local historic preservation activities emerged before corresponding public policy was established. In some cases preservation is culturally driven among local residents who maintained a personal preference and interest in actually preserving historic resources. This reflects the conventional preservation narrative: the preservation of history for history’s sake. In such cases, where the particular sensibilities of local interest groups maintained a genuine personal interest in preservation, government initiatives were unnecessary. Diversity was a central concept in this research, which hypothesized that historic preservation activity will reflect the physical and social idiosyncrasies of different neighborhoods. Moreover, the governmental programs and incentives that residents, developers, and neighborhood organizations elect to promote and use will impact the process of gentrification locally in diverse and identifiable ways. The case studies in this 324 research clearly reveal the diverse manifestations of gentrification in three Chicago neighborhoods with significant historic preservation activity. As discussed in previous chapters, the literature on cities and urbanism is rife with references to the relationship between preservation and gentrification. The preponderance of this literature suggests that preservation either causes gentrification outright, or is wrapped up in the process in some salient way. Yet these analyses typically end before they even begin. The nature of historic preservation’s relationship to gentrification is a topic that has rarely been analyzed in a comprehensive and critical manner and remains largely undefined. Moreover, this topic has never been analyzed in the context of a single city and its many historic neighborhoods. Currently there is also a dearth of research that clarifies historic preservation’s role in upgrading neighborhoods or attempts to place it in the larger discourse of stateled, or government-subsidized, gentrification. This is surprising, given the fact that preservation in the United States has long been a public-private partnership and one that has only strengthened over the course of the 20th century. The drafters of the National Historic Preservation Act determined this relationship important enough to highlight in the law’s preamble: …although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals, and both should continue to play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and accelerate their historic preservation programs and activities (1966). If historic preservation is related to gentrification, and preservation is fundamentally a public-private endeavor, then by virtue of this transitive relationship government, no less than the private sector, is in some capacity involved in 325 gentrification. A primary contribution of this dissertation is in helping to elucidate this relationship. It implicates a suite of government programs in a process of urban restructuring that has been shown to impact segments of the population in negative ways. It also expands the research on state-led gentrification and contributes to the discussion of gentrification’s diversity. The focus of this dissertation was America’s “first city of architecture,” Chicago, over the transformative decades between 1970 and 2000. Three historic neighborhoods experiencing similar scales of gentrification were selected as case studies through the quantitative portion of the research, the PCA and K-Means cluster analysis. The neighborhoods identified reveal how, within the context of a single city, gentrification emerges and plays out at different times and in different ways. Moreover, the case studies reveal how different historic preservation tactics are used in each of the neighborhoods to further different objectives, with the overarching goal of social and physical upgrading always looming large in the background. It has been theorized that gentrification is driven by the ready supply of real estate in neighborhoods where a rent gap exists. These are neighborhoods where a profitable discrepancy can be found between existing rents and, through increased capitalization, potential rents. It has also been theorized that gentrification is propelled by consumers with a taste for architecturally-unique, handcrafted housing of the sort that was in large supply in urban neighborhoods by the mid-20th century. This was an era of suburbanization and new construction. It was also a time of growing awareness in, and appreciation for, American history and historic buildings—the historic environment being decimated during this time by highway-building, urban renewal projects, and wholesale disinvestment in many city neighborhoods. In the 1960s, small numbers of residents began rejecting the siren’s call of the suburbs in favor of the affordable and amenity-rich 326 environment of residential city neighborhoods located near the downtown and its base of service sector jobs. In Chicago, it was largely through the efforts of this early cohort of gentrifiers that many of these residential neighborhoods were designated as historic beginning in the 1970s. This dissertation helped show how historic preservation contributes to both of these theoretical perspectives on gentrification. With respect to consumer demand, historic preservation is a way of anointing certain neighborhoods as unique, significant, and “special.” It allows one urban neighborhood to differentiate itself from another, as well as from the suburbs and other places that are perceived as being mass-produced and serially-replicated. This was clearly seen in all three case studies in this dissertation. Ironically, “special” historic places have themselves become massproduced in what Jager referred to as the production of “gentrification kitsch” (Jager 1986, p. 87). The luster and cachet of scarcity may be tarnished through the overproduction of such places. For the moment, however, preservation remains a tool for enforcing distinction. Once a neighborhood is officially earmarked as “historic,” certain programs and financial incentives are made available to affected property owners. A program like the National Register of Historic Places confers official historic status and serves as a baseline requirement for participation in kindred programs—the Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, for example, which supports the rehabilitation of historic properties in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The financial subsidization of historic building rehabilitation projects reduces a developer’s risk when investing in devalorized neighborhoods. The Uptown case study illustrated this point nicely. Developers there used the tax credit program in their attempt to replicate the successes of gentrified neighborhoods to the immediate south: to transform the 327 Sheridan Park neighborhood of Uptown into “Lincoln Park II.” The Historic Tax Assessment Freeze program serves a similar purpose for homeowners. The use of this program was common in the middle-class, homeowner-oriented neighborhood of Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville of Edgewater. When these public programs are brought to bear in poor neighborhoods, where residents are concerned with shelter and subsistence, not historic buildings, it is not difficult to understand suspicions about preservation’s role in gentrification and displacement. Of the three case studies, Sheridan Park in Uptown saw by far the most resistance to gentrification. Other Chicago neighborhoods not included in this study (most notably, Wicker Park, Pilsen, and recently, Humboldt Park) have seen similar opposition. The methodology followed in this dissertation was developed by Podagrosi, Vojnovic, and Pigozzi in their paper chronicling the diverse forms of gentrification and displacement in the neighborhoods of Houston, Texas (Podagrosi, Vojnovic and Pigozzi 2011). Their approach was considerably more elastic than most and allowed for a variety of gentrification forms to be discovered. A PCA was first performed on tract-level census variables that capture change in Chicago’s population, socioeconomic, and housing characteristics between 1970 and 2000. This was followed by a K-Means cluster analysis that partitioned the census tracts into subgroups experiencing similar scales of social and physical upgrading that suggested the presence of gentrification. From one cluster, three census tracts were selected as case studies. Tract 718 in Lincoln Park served as the identifying baseline neighborhood. Described by Chicago realtors as the “Lincoln Park miracle,” this north side enclave is the standard to which other gentrifying neighborhoods have long been compared (Joravsky 1988, n. pag). The quantitative elements of this research laid the foundation for the qualitative portion that followed. 328 The qualitative element in this research involved the investigation of three census tracts from the target cluster, each of which was located in an area with a high concentration of historic preservation activity. These tracts were chosen to reveal the varying ways that historic preservation activity can inflect the gentrification trajectories and outcomes of different neighborhoods. The three case study neighborhoods were all located on Chicago’s north side. A tract in the south-central portion of the Lincoln Park CCA served as the baseline neighborhood. The Sheridan Park neighborhood of the Uptown CCA and Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville neighborhood of the Edgewater CCA served as the second and third case studies. An aspect critical to this research was government’s role in the process of gentrification by virtue of its involvement in historic preservation. To be sure, no government preservation program openly advocates for gentrification or displacement. In many circumstances preservation reflects the genuine cultural sensibilities and preferences of grassroots groups and residents and is not undertaken merely for economic gain. Yet, this research revealed how preservation programs at the Federal and State levels often go hand in hand with gentrification and, by extension, with displacement in many of Chicago’s historic neighborhoods. Local historic preservation undertaken by the City of Chicago is much more circumscribed in its impact, as measured in numbers of properties affected. An unexpected outcome in this research was that the relationship of city programs to gentrification was much less clear than those of the Federal and State governments. A program like the National Register can change the reinvestment trajectory of a neighborhood in two primary ways. First, it provides an official imprimatur regarding a neighborhood’s historical significance and architectural quality. When a building or district is formally declared historic it conveys the sense that government is privileging 329 that neighborhood in some respect, even though a program like the National Register purports to be purely honorific—as opposed to regulatory—in its operation. It offers virtually no police power oversight that would allow public intervention to prohibit demolitions and major alterations that impact the historical character of the neighborhood. Nevertheless, as was seen in Lincoln Park, Sheridan Park, and Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville, neighborhoods seize on this honorific designation and use it to promote the neighborhoods in various ways. This was evident in the promotion of each case study neighborhood through historic signage and plaques, as well as in the references to the rechristened neighborhoods by their “historic” (and baggage-free) new names: “Sheridan Park” instead of “Heart of Uptown,” for example. The second way that a historic preservation program like the National Register can steer a neighborhood towards regeneration is more direct. Public financial incentives for private historic rehabilitation work can alter the value of a neighborhood. Through the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program for income-producing properties and the State of Illinois’s Historic Preservation Tax Assessment Freeze program for owner-occupied properties, government encourages and subsidizes capital reinvestment in historic neighborhoods. As discussed earlier in this work, these neighborhoods are heavily concentrated in neighborhoods in Chicago with affluent populations, or in areas where reinvestment is seen as a way of changing the course of redevelopment and encouraging broader revitalization efforts. Both of these financial incentives programs require private capital reinvestment up front. They also require technical expertise in the area of historic rehabilitation standards and persistence on the part of the applicant in shepherding complex projects through bureaucratic processes to completion. For these reasons they tend to be used by affluent and educated 330 populations—the new middle class, as originally recognized by Ruth Glass, providing one classic profile. The tables included below summarize many of the key population, socioeconomic, and housing changes occurring within the three case study neighborhoods over the period 1970-2000. They reveal changes in neighborhoods that benefited from substantial historic preservation activity. For comparison, changes at the geographic scale of the PCA cluster and the entire city of Chicago are also included. In general, Lincoln Park experienced changes in the indicators of gentrification that are almost absurdly dramatic. This neighborhood is one of Chicago’s best examples of traditional gentrification and emergent super-gentrification. Residents were drawn to Lincoln Park because of its historic character even before preservation policies and incentives focused attention on the neighborhood and its unique characteristics, and the legacy of social and physical upgrading was established before 1970. Sheridan Park in Uptown and Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville in Edgewater suggest a more tentative process of gentrification at work, the former due to its “threatening” poor population and the latter because of its lack thereof—its contentedly middle-class status. Between 1970 and 2000, Chicago’s residents became much more highly educated as a whole [Table 8.1]. This was particularly acute in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, which saw a monumental change in the number of college graduates. The increase of over 1,000% is double that of its closest rival, Uptown (433%), and nearly triple that of Edgewater (342%) and of the cluster (308%). While change in the percentage of college graduates occurred at all geographic scales, it is smallest citywide: Chicago’s college-educated population increased by less than 200%, while the upgrading cluster’s college-educated population increased by over 308%. By 2000, 80% of the Lincoln Park neighborhood’s population held at least a bachelor’s degree. 331 Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago College graduates 1970: # (% of total) 144 (7.22%) 387 (6.13%) 462 (11.49%) 49,149 (14.96%) 153,138 (8.05%) College graduates 2000” # (% of total) 1,607 (80.71%) 2,065 (39.72%) 2,044 (55.47%) 200,701 (59.32%) 459,365 (25.48%) Percent change 19702000 1,015.97% 433.59% 342.42% 308.35% 199.96% Table 8.1: Number, percent, and percentage change of college graduates. Similar trends were apparent with the professionalization variable [Table 8.2]. Lincoln Park again surpassed the other neighborhoods, the cluster, and the city with an increase of over 700%. By 2000, over 60% of the residents of that neighborhood were classified as working professionals as compared with 35% in Uptown and 63% in Edgewater—a neighborhood that was already home to many more professionals, and a higher percentage of professionals, in 1970. Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Professionals 1970: # (% of total) 149 (10.98%) 390 (9.09%) 711 (25.85%) 62,821 (25.51%) 246,725 (17.81%) Professionals 2000” # (% of total) 1,210 (61.64%) 1,489 (35.84%) 1,830 (63.15%) 159,836 (56.69%) 404,192 (33.39%) Percent change 19702000 712.08% 281.79% 157.38% 154.43% 68.82% Table 8.2: Number, percent, and percentage change of professional residents. Like many cities during this period, growing professionalization characterized Chicago’s working population. At the same time, there was a commensurate process of deindustrialization at work that is reflected in the steadily declining number of residents employed in manufacturing [Table 8.3]. Losses in this sector were seen at all geographic scales. Uptown, with its generally poorer and more working-class base of residents, lead the decline with 75% losses. Manufacturing losses across the whole of Chicago undoubtedly created hardships for the blue collar workers living in Uptown. 332 Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Manufacturers 1970: # (% of total) 324 (23.87%) 1,494 (34.80) 699 (25.41%) 64,687 (26.27%) 397,593 (28.70%) Manufacturers 2000” # (% of total) 104 (5.30%) 367 (8.83%) 228 (7.87%) 20,655 (7.32%) 158,254 (13.07%) Percent change 19702000 -67.9% -75.43% -67.38% -68.06% -60.19% Table 8.3: Number, percent, and percentage change of residents employed in the manufacturing sector. The poverty variable tells a different story [Table 8.4]. While the number of families living below the poverty level decreases at all geographic scales, decline in the three case studies and in the cluster as a whole far outpace that of the city. Again, Lincoln Park leads the way at -85%, with Uptown and the cluster at just over -60%. Edgewater, which has been home to fewer impoverished families over the period 19702000, saw a smaller decrease of 41%. However, the number of poor families in this neighborhood as a percentage of the total has remained consistent at approximately 5.5%. Chicago, on the other hand, saw a decrease in poverty of only 17.73%, a figure that was well below that of the case study neighborhoods and the upgrading cluster. Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Poverty 1970: # (% of total) 228 (23.87%) 599 (25.23%) 86 (5.55%) 19,412 (15.68%) 128,257 (15.54%) Poverty 2000” # (% of total) 34 (5.29%) 228 (17.78%) 50 (5.33%) 7,301 (9.0%) 105,509 (16.80%) Percent change 19702000 -85.09% -61.93% -41.86% -62.39% -17.73% Table 8.4: Number, percent, and percentage change of families living in poverty. The following two tables together reveal changes in the tenurial makeup of housing units within the neighborhoods, in the cluster, and in the city [Tables 8.5-8.6]. Across all scales, a shift away from renter- to owner-occupied units was clearly evident. The increase in homeowners and decrease in renters was greatest in Lincoln Park. This serves as another indicator that this neighborhood, above all others, is a hotbed of upgrading in Chicago. Uptown stood out for its high incidence of rental units and 333 Edgewater for its strong homeowner base. Uptown was also remarkable for its 250% increase in owner-occupied units (and 31.56% decrease in rental units), which rival the changes in Lincoln Park. This would suggest that the fears of poor Uptown residents and local affordable housing groups have been realized: Uptown was becoming less of a bastion of affordable rental housing and, in some ways, more of a “Lincoln Park II.” Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Owner-Occupied 1970: # (% of total) 200 (15.22%) 203 (4.57%) 642 (29.21%) 35,946 (14.85%) 396,104 (34.87) Owner-Occupied 2000” # (%of total) 734 (52.96%) 712 (19.70%) 786 (35.49%) 85,914 (33.98%) 460,755 (43.72%) Percent change 19702000 267.0% 250.73% 22.43% 50.56% 16.32% Table 8.5: Number, percent, and percentage change of owner-occupied housing units. Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Renter-Occupied 1970: # (% of total) 1,114 (84.78%) 4,240 (95.43%) 1,556 (70.79%) 183,598 (75.85%) 739,844 (65.13) Renter-Occupied 2000: # (% of total) 652 (47.04%) 2,902 (80.30%) 1,429 (64.51%) 151,459 (59.91) 593,011 (56.27%) Percent change 19702000 -41.47% -31.56% -8.16% -17.51% -19.84% Table 8.6: Number, percent, and percentage change of renter-occupied housing units. Changes in per capita and family income again revealed a Lincoln Park neighborhood that was becoming affluent at a rate far beyond that of the other neighborhoods, the cluster, and the city [Tables 8.7-8.8]. With per capita and family incomes that were lowest in 1970, Lincoln Park far surpassed even middle-class Edgewater by 2000. Uptown and Edgewater showed steady gains in per capita income but were below that of the cluster. Uptown, however, experienced a loss in family income over the 1970-2000 period. In general, however, the three case studies and PCA cluster from which they were drawn all demonstrate an increasing affluence that dwarfed that of the city as a whole. 334 Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Per Capita Income 1970: $ adjusted $9,624 $12,938 $18,067 $16,819 $14,804 Per Capita Income 2000: $ $86,174 $21,888 $34,114 $39,578 $19,912 Percent change 19702000 795.37% 69.17% 88.82% 133.88% 34.51% Table 8.7: Per capita income change, 1970-2000. Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Median Family Income 1970: $ adjusted $33,123 $34,971 $52,337 $44,701 $44,907 Median Family Income 2000: $ $156,551 $33,576 $63,514 $76,910 $46,221 Percent change 19702000 372.62% -3.99% 21.36% 72.05% 2.92% Table 8.8: Media family income change, 1970-2000. The variables describing housing showed increases at all geographic scales [Tables 8.9-8.10]. Lincoln Park’s increase in median gross rent (135%) was dramatic, as was its increase in median housing value (659%). Uptown’s increases in rental and housing values were smaller than that of middle-class Edgewater, even though housing values were virtually the same in 1970. Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Median Gross Rent 1970: $ adjusted $467 $481 $590 $513 $545 Median Gross Rent 2000: $ $1,102 $522 $824 $790 $612 Percent change 19702000 135.66% 8.47% 39.61% 53.99% 13.08% Table 8.9: Median gross rent, change 1970-2000. Area Lincoln Park case Uptown case Edgewater case Cluster Chicago Median Housing Value 1970: $ adjusted $59,020 $105,782 $105,328 $93,146 $86,021 Median Housing Value 2000: $ $448,200 $226,200 $341,500 $282,912 $164,525 Percent change 19702000 659.40% 113.84% 224.23% 203.72% 91.26% Table 8.10: Median housing value, change 1970-2000. 335 In Lincoln Park, the first case study neighborhood in this dissertation, gentrification was initially driven by new homeowners undertaking home improvements on their own and practicing what became known as “sweat equity.” These were residents of modest income who were drawn to the neighborhood in the 1960s by its unique historic fabric, its affordability, and its proximity to the Loop’s white collar employment base. Historic preservation activity in the greater Lincoln Park CCA began in the 1970s, shortly after their arrival, with the listing of several historic districts and individual properties to the National Register and as Chicago Landmarks. Residents regarded the goals of historic preservation as naturally complementary to the goals of urban planning. Preservation was used to minimize large-scale public and private building and urban renewal projects and to effectively “downzone” the neighborhood in order to retain a uniformly low-density character. It was a way to focus on the exchange value of the neighborhood’s real estate and protect the relatively scarce historic, handcrafted buildings in a high-demand part of Chicago. However, by the 1980s, developers had seized upon the skyrocketing local real estate market and began to reshape the physical face of the neighborhood in ways that did not always conform to historic preservation’s goals. This included major alterations and additions to historic buildings to meet the changing tastes of residents, as well as tear-downs. The demolition of housing in Lincoln Park and in the Sheffield Historic District accelerated in the 1990s and continued into the 21st century. The Lincoln Park case study is noteworthy as an example of a neighborhood where historic preservation has become a victim of its own success. The Sheffield Historic District, as well as other National Register districts in the Lincoln Park CCA, were central in the promotion of the neighborhood as a historic, architecturally unique, 336 and amenity-rich environment for residents who desired old city homes in a dense neighborhood located near to the Loop. Yet as the historic neighborhood gentrified, the very qualities that attracted residents to it—the small-scale, handcrafted buildings with a historical cachet conferred by age—gave way to the demands for updated housing with contemporary amenities not found in the century-old building stock. As a result, Lincoln Park has seen enumerable alterations to the existing historic buildings. Many of these are quite large and intrusive. The neighborhood has also seen numerous tear-downs and new upscale construction—the physical manifestation of what researchers have described as “new-build gentrification.” Even in affluent Lincoln Park, middle-class residents eventually started feeling the inhibiting effects of skyrocketing real estate costs. Displacement of the middle class, a determinant of super-gentrification, was noted as early as the 1990s. More recently, a developer quoted in a Chicago Tribune article entitled “Even $1 Million Homes Vulnerable to Teardowns” noted how continuing waves of investment in Lincoln Park and the intensification of the existing housing stock “pushes people that even make a good living out of the heart of the city, there’s no question” (Souffle 2014). Nowhere was this better seen than in the “megamansions” built along North Burling Street in the 2000s. The consolidation of multiple city lots for a single residence in itself reduces the amount of available housing in Lincoln Park. This impacts not only the neighborhood’s remaining poor, but potential residents of any socioeconomic class. The Lincoln Park case study also revealed how wealthy individual property owners and small-scale developers, working in an inflated real estate market, could forego public historic preservation financial subsidies like tax credits—with their inherent regulations and limitations—and instead capitalize on the simple presence of historic 337 buildings to upgrade the neighborhood. Though historic preservation incentives were used elsewhere in the greater Lincoln Park CCA, they are all but absent in the case study tract. This reflects a different set of preservation needs among residents as Lincoln Park ceaselessly upgraded over the 1970-2000 period. In the Sheridan Park neighborhood of Uptown, unique physical and social upgrading processes created a different path to gentrification. Private developers, more so than area residents, actively lobbied for the creation of the Sheridan Park Historic District and sought to instigate gentrification in a neighborhood that was home to a “threatening” local population. Listed in the National Register in 1985, the district allowed developers to rehabilitate income-producing properties—primarily rental units in apartment buildings—using the Historic Preservation Tax Credit program. This defrayed the costs of capital reinvestment in the risky neighborhood. Developers were then able to charge higher rents for these upgraded properties. This, of course, had the effect of displacing many vulnerable, low-income families from the neighborhood. Many, if not most, of the developers involved in this process live outside of Uptown, or even outside of Chicago. The Chicago Reader noted this in a 1989 article about the changing state of machine politics in the city. The article mentions developers Henry and Randall Langer, who were widely influential in the redevelopment of Uptown: Together realtor/developers Henry Langer and his son, Randall, contributed a little over $60,000 to Daley. Over the past half-dozen years, Randall has bought 28 buildings in Uptown, renovating many, raising rents, and forcing many low-income residents out. He fought against settlement of a lawsuit that would have committed the city to resist displacement of people by new developments and would have provided funds to build much-needed low-income housing in Uptown. A resident of [the suburb] La Grange, he contributed more than $10,000 to the opponent of affordable-housing advocate Helen Shiller in the 1987 aldermanic election. Langer sees himself as improving the neighborhood and increasing the city tax base. As taxes increase from his 338 development, he argues, they can trickle down to help the homeless. “I definitely believe Daley is more apt to look favorably on development that's increasing the tax base in the city,” he says (Moberg 1989, n. pag). At the same time, the Sheridan Park case study also revealed how an empowered community—in this case, a low-income and transient one—could rally against laissez-faire preservation efforts and even manipulate these efforts to its own advantage. Uptown’s active and generally powerful coalition of affordable housing nonprofits and supportive local politicians were able to offset some of the losses caused by housing unit deconversion and rehabilitation-fueled upgrading. They did this by convincing developers to piggyback preservation tax credits with other Federal incentives (for example, Community Development Block Grants and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits) to create below-market rate housing for the poor. Despite these successes, Uptown has nevertheless experienced gradual upgrading over the period 1970-2000. It may eventually be described, with some accuracy, as “Lincoln Park II” or “Yuptown,” much as local critics of gentrification had feared. Today, developers and city officials are tapping into the Uptown CCA’s historical legacy as a center for early film and theater to promote the area as the north side’s premier entertainment district. Neither the Lincoln Park case study nor the Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville case study of Edgewater experienced developer-driven upgrading to the same degree. This again reveals gentrification’s inherent diversity, and why Uptown remains a case of slow gentrification. Finally, the Lincoln-Balmoral/Andersonville neighborhood of the Edgewater CCA represents another case of relatively slow gentrification that was still developing at the end of the 1970-2000 study period. Of the three case studies, this middle-class and “suburban” neighborhood is located farthest from Chicago’s Loop. Yet it has many of the same locational advantages as those CCAs to its immediate south. It has access to 339 the lakefront and allows reasonably easy commuting to the Loop via public transportation and the Lake Shore Drive expressway. However, Edgewater is also separated from Lincoln Park and the pantheon of gentrified neighborhoods surrounding it by the presence of Uptown, which, as the Sheridan Park case study made evident, has traditionally been the poorest, most deteriorated, and most “threatening” CCA on Chicago’s north side. Over the period 1970-2000 Edgewater was insulated from the extremes in disinvestment and poverty seen in Uptown and the steady escalation in the real estate market of Lincoln Park. Gentrification in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville can be framed as a case where historic preservation helped solidify an already stable, middleclass neighborhood that saw neither significant social decline and physical deterioration nor meteoric rises in residential income and housing. It is an example of moderately slow and deliberate gentrification. Displacement has been comparatively limited and has involved members of the gay community that settled here, particularly in the Andersonville part of the neighborhood, after being priced out of traditionally gay neighborhoods in Lake View. Historic preservation activity in Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville was driven not by external developers but by homeowners and the neighborhood organizations that represent them. The use of the Historic Tax Assessment Freeze program, an incentives program geared precisely to a neighborhood of single-family homes like this, reflects the strong local base of homeowners. Moreover, a genuine interest among residents in history and historic preservation is evident in the sophisticated work of the Edgewater Historical Society. This appears to be on par with any local interest in preservation strictly as a redevelopment tool. 340 8.2 Policy Recommendations The introduction to this dissertation cited the National Commission on Neighborhood’s 1979 report to Congress, People, Building Neighborhoods. This report notes the unintended, negative consequences of government programs on the nation’s urban poor and offers a series of recommendations to mitigate these impacts. The Commission’s Task Force on Governance, Citizen Participation and Neighborhood Empowerment focuses on gentrification and displacement brought about by historic preservation and other Federal programs. The report recommends that preservation be a part of a devolved program of redevelopment in urban neighborhoods whereby locals have more control over the preservation process. It recommends that all levels of government must develop strong policies which insure that historic preservation programs do not contribute to displacement of low and moderate income and minority residents in [historic] designated areas. These policies must include a monitoring system which consistently and effectively reviews preservation programs throughout their implementation phase” (National Commission on Neighborhoods 1979, p. 55). The report then recommends a mixture of programmatic and policy changes to address gentrification and displacement and calls for the provision of technical and financial support to help urban communities to cope with these issues. Of the recommendations made in 1979, few have been carried out either in part or in whole. The one that seems to have been heeded has been the call for the piggybacking of preservation and non-preservation financial incentives available through the Federal government. The report recommends that “historic preservation funds should be able to be combined with other federal funds [for use by] non-profit organizations for projects that benefit low income people, minorities and the elderly” (Ibid., pp. 55-56). As seen in the Sheridan Park case study in Uptown, piggybacking has become a standard practice among private developers who work alongside a 341 neighborhood’s non-profits to include below-market rate housing units in rehabilitated historic buildings. In essence, it allows private developers to turn a profit in support of the provision of a welfare service. Even though Sheridan Park witnessed displacement in the period 1970-2000, it also saw cases where historic preservation could facilitate physical upgrading that met the needs of lower-income residents. Aside from examples like this, however, there has been little policy inheritance from People, Building Neighborhoods, at least insofar as historic preservation is concerned16. An additional recommendation in the report, one that might have made preservation programs more accountable, was never adopted. This called for an impact statement to accompany the National Register designation process, something akin to the environmental impact statement associated with natural resources programs: The National Register designation of a district should have a statement of impact on the area designated and, when identified, the National Register area should be available for additional assistance, set-asides, bonuses, technical assistance, and demonstration grants or other available resources. The statement of impact should be a preliminary identification of the potential or ongoing changes in the neighborhood. The design and implementation of such an impact statement could be created through the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the federal inter-agency council on historic preservation, since there would need to be ongoing involvement, coordination and cooperation of at least HUD and the Department of the Interior, not only in the creation and design but also in the implementation (ibid. p. 55). The main policy recommendation offered in this dissertation would help mitigate government’s role in preservation-fueled gentrification. An impact statement that highlights potential population shifts and displacement could help neighborhoods to think about historic preservation’s “bigger picture.” It would resuscitate the recommendations of the report above while acknowledging that the problems cities faced during the 1970s, when the report was drafted, were 16 The Federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, issued policy statements on preservation and affordable housing in 1995 and 2005. Their connections to the 1979 report, if any exist, are unclear. 342 fundamentally different than those today. As this dissertation has made evident, gentrification and displacement occurs across the spectrum of neighborhoods and no longer only in poor ones. It involves affluent neighborhoods like Lincoln Park and middle-class neighborhoods like Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville in Edgewater, in addition to poorer neighborhoods like Sheridan Park in the Uptown CCA. How historic preservation activity plays out in these neighborhoods is frequently a reflection of each neighborhood’s population and its unique physical characteristics. The Edgewater case study is a “suburban” enclave of owneroccupied, single-family houses while Uptown is characterized by its rental apartment buildings. Both gentrification and preservation show a wide diversity of forms as hypothesized. Nevertheless, the requirement of an impact statement as part of the National Register listing process, combined with avoidance or mitigation efforts where negative community impacts were anticipated, would help create awareness of the potential for displacement brought about by preservation-fueled revitalization. It would also educate an impacted population about preservation’s potential detriments, as well as benefits, and in so doing empower local residents to better influence the consequent redevelopment of their neighborhood. At present, residents are given the opportunity to support or oppose a proposed historic district listing, but this is solicited in the absence of any information about the district’s potentially negative impacts. The benefits of listing are repeatedly touted—the financial incentives and cachet of living in a historic area, among others—but little is said of the increasing rents and assessments and displacement of existing residents. 343 8.3 Historic Preservation as Redevelopment Policy and its Implications for Urban Governance Exploring the relationship between historic preservation and gentrification has allowed for a clearer understanding of how a seemingly innocuous suite of public programs, one that provides an undeniable public good, is wrapped up in a process that can be detrimental to society’s weakest members. At the core of this relationship is a much broader shift in urban governance regimes that was apparent over the period 1970-2000. Harvey describes this as the shift from managerialism to entrepreneurialism: from government as a provider of public services and welfare to government as a promoter of private development and job creation (Harvey 1989). In the United States, this shift began in the early-1970s and coincided with the Federal government’s fiscal retrenchment and its diminished role in urban affairs. Not coincidentally, governmental historic preservation also emerged during this time. With its emphasis on public-private partnerships and the funding of private redevelopment that served a broadly interpreted public good—the protection of historical patrimony and revitalization of communities—historic preservation was firmly in keeping with the new entrepreneurial spirit of its time. As a way of breathing new life into devalorized urban neighborhoods in an era when the suburbs commanded most growth in metropolitan areas, preservation seemed an unconditional success. A neighborhood like Lincoln Park was repeatedly described in the press from the 1970s onward as a “gold standard” neighborhood for preservation—a neighborhood where the presence of old and historic buildings could drive repopulation and reinvestment and succeed where governmental urban renewal had failed. Lincoln Park was promoted as a model for other neighborhoods with the right physical characteristics to gentrify. A subtle but instrumental part of this process was the imprimatur of historicity: the official license to gentrify. 344 As preservation became a cornerstone to upgrading in many of Chicago’s neighborhoods, concerns began to be raised about the displacement of long-term residents. These concerns were raised primarily in the press, among academics, and by the social justice non-profits that served neighborhoods like Uptown. Governmental preservation offices at Federal, State, and local levels were virtually silent on this issue. The influx of capital reinvestment revalued historic neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Sheridan Park, and Lakewood-Balmoral/Andersonville and forced lower-income—but not always low-income—residents to other locations within and outside of Chicago. The result is a city with a core of gentrified, largely affluent, historic enclaves and a peripheral ring of neighborhoods where investment is lacking and social problems manifold. Most of these neighborhoods are not considered historic and likely never will be. This dissertation ends by asking several questions about the role of historic preservation in urban neighborhoods and its relationship to gentrification. First, if honorific historic preservation programs like the National Register focus attention on neighborhoods and spur their revitalization, which in turn creates pressures to redevelop these neighborhoods to maximize real estate profits, is this good public policy? And second, is it good public policy to invest in the private rehabilitation of historic buildings when many these buildings, as the case of Lincoln Park exemplifies, may eventually succumb to redevelopment pressure and be torn down anyway? No facile answers are offered, just the observation that public policy needs to evolve to remain relevant. Historic preservation came of age in an era when disinvestment and sweeping urban renewal was altering the physical face of cities, and countless historic buildings and entire historic neighborhoods were lost. Urban America, and American society in general, has changed dramatically over the period 1970-2000. The threats faced by historic urban neighborhoods today reflect not the disinclination to live and work and 345 invest in cities, but the opposite: the concentration of capital reinvestment and population in a few privileged enclaves. Not only can this strain the historical integrity and significance of these neighborhoods, but it challenges the application of public programs that are supposed to be unbiased in their commemoration of American history. 8.4 Future Research Directions In their expansive and thoughtful assessment of the current state of historic preservation research, Ryberg-Webster and Kinahan recently concluded that additional work needs to be undertaken to clarify the “race and class implications” of preservation practices. They argue that this would help elucidate the complex nature of the relationship between preservation, urban revitalization, and gentrification (RybergWebster and Kinahan 2014, p. 13). The authors propose that “future studies should blend quantitative and qualitative methods to develop a robust portrait” of the ways preservation programs inflect the redevelopment processes at work within cities (ibid.). This, of course, represents a primary contribution of this dissertation research and is something that could reasonably be carried into the extension of this study and into future studies. In terms of extending this research, it would be valuable to better tease out the differences in the impacts of the various historic preservation programs at work in Chicago. Future research in this vein might explore in detail the specific historic preservation programs and incentives that have most benefited lower-income groups and minorities and helped to ensure that they remain within their traditional neighborhoods. This would provide a logical nexus between historic preservation and the body of research that examines the “social preservation” of resident populations (Brown-Saracino 2004; Brown-Saracino 2007; Brown-Saracino 2009). It would also provide a foundation for changing public policy in ways that positively impact 346 disenfranchised urban groups and better involve them in historic preservation and local history. The model developed in this work could also be applied to other cities to determine whether, and in what ways, Chicago is unique. It could be used to gauge the degree to which governmental preservation programs differentially impact the process of upgrading in cities of varying size, morphology, population, and political and social proclivity. This would be a relevant research direction since local preservation programs vary widely by city, state, and region. Logical studies might include large, historic cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco, as well as smaller cities like Savannah and Charleston, South Carolina. Savannah would make for a particularly interesting case study since local community leaders have actively sought to redress the social inequities that can accompany historic preservation activity. Assuming the availability of comparable time-series data, the model might also be applied internationally. Cities such as Malmö, Glasgow, Toronto, and Beijing have significant historic quarters or architectural typologies and have all been the subject of gentrification research. A transnational, comparative study of local gentrification processes would be unique in its ability to highlight the differential impacts of historic preservation policies and practices, which vary considerably by country. 347 APPENDICES 348 APPENDIX A: Census Tracts and Corresponding Chicago Community Areas Rogers Park 101, Rogers Park 102, Rogers Park 103, Rogers Park 104, Rogers Park 105, Rogers Park 106, Rogers Park 107, Rogers Park 108, Rogers Park 109, West Ridge 201, West Ridge 202, West Ridge 203, West Ridge 204, West Ridge 205, West Ridge 206, West Ridge 207, West Ridge 208, West Ridge 209, Edgewater 301, Edgewater 302, Edgewater 303, Edgewater 304, Edgewater 305, Edgewater 306, Edgewater 307, Edgewater 308, Edgewater 309, Uptown 310, Uptown 311, Uptown 312, Uptown 313, Uptown 314, Uptown 315, Uptown 316, Uptown 317, Uptown 318, Uptown 319, Uptown 320, Uptown 321, Lincoln Square 401, Lincoln Square 402, Lincoln Square 403, Lincoln Square 404, Lincoln Square 405, Lincoln Square 406, Lincoln Square 407, Lincoln Square 408, Lincoln Square 409, Lincoln Square 410, North Center 501, North Center 502, North Center 503, North Center 504, North Center 505, North Center 506, North Center 507, North Center 508, North Center 509, North Center 510, North Center 511, North Center 512, North Center 513, North Center 514, North Center 515, Lakeview 601, Lakeview 602, Lakeview 603, Lakeview 604, Lakeview 605, Lakeview 606, Lakeview 607, Lakeview 608, Lakeview 609, Lakeview 610, Lakeview 611, Lakeview 612, Lakeview 613, Lakeview 614, Lakeview 615, Lakeview 616, Lakeview 617, Lakeview 618, Lakeview 619, Lakeview 620, Lakeview 621, Lakeview 622, Lakeview 623, Lakeview 624, Lakeview 625, Lakeview 626, Lakeview 627, Lakeview 628, Lakeview 629, Lakeview 630, Lakeview 631, Lakeview 632, Lakeview 633, Lakeview 634, Lincoln Park 701, Lincoln Park 702, Lincoln Park 703, Lincoln Park 704, Lincoln Park 705, Lincoln Park 706, Lincoln Park 707, Lincoln Park 708, Lincoln Park 709, Lincoln Park 710, Lincoln Park 711, Lincoln Park 712, Lincoln Park 713, Lincoln Park 714, Lincoln Park 715, Lincoln Park 716, Lincoln Park 717, Lincoln Park 718, Lincoln Park 719, Lincoln Park 720, Near North Side 801, Near North Side 802, Near North Side 803, Near North Side 804, Near North Side 805, Near North Side 806, Near North Side 807, Near North Side 808, Near North Side 809, Near North Side 810, Near North Side 811, Near North Side 812, Near North Side 813, Near North Side 814, Near North Side 815, Near North Side 816, Near North Side 817, Near North Side 818, Near North Side 819, Edison Park 901, Edison Park 902, Edison Park 903, Norwood Park 1001, Norwood Park 1002, Norwood Park 1003, Norwood Park 1004, Norwood Park 1005, Norwood Park 1006, Norwood Park 1007, Jefferson Park 1101, Jefferson Park 1102, Jefferson Park 1103, Jefferson Park 1104, Jefferson Park 1105, Forest Glen 1201, Forest Glen 1202, Forest Glen 1203, Forest Glen 1204, North Park 1301, North Park 1302, North Park 1303, North Park 1304, North Park 1305, Albany Park 1401, Albany Park 1402, Albany Park 1403, Albany Park 1404, Albany Park 1405, Albany Park 1406, Albany Park 1407, Albany Park 1408, Portage Park 1501, Portage Park 1502, Portage Park 1503, Portage Park 1504, Portage Park 1505, Portage Park 1506, Portage Park 1507, Portage Park 1508, Portage Park 1509, Portage Park 1510, Portage Park 1511, Portage Park 1512, Irving Park 1601, Irving Park 1602, Irving Park 1603, Irving Park 1604, Irving Park 1605, Irving Park 1606, Irving Park 1607, Irving Park 1608, Irving Park 1609, Irving Park 1610, Irving Park 1611, Irving Park 1612, Irving Park 1613, Dunning 1701, Dunning 1702, Dunning 1703, Dunning 1704, Dunning 1705, Table A.1: Census tracts and corresponding Chicago Community Areas. 349 Table A.1 (cont’d) Dunning 1706, Dunning 1707, Dunning 1708, Dunning 1709, Dunning 1710, Dunning 1711, Montclare 1801, Montclare 1802, Montclare 1803, Belmont Cragin 1901, Belmont Cragin 1902, Belmont Cragin 1903, Belmont Cragin 1904, Belmont Cragin 1905, Belmont Cragin 1906, Belmont Cragin 1907, Belmont Cragin 1908, Belmont Cragin 1909, Belmont Cragin 1910, Belmont Cragin 1911, Belmont Cragin 1912, Belmont Cragin 1913, Belmont Cragin 1914, Hermosa 2001, Hermosa 2002, Hermosa 2003, Hermosa 2004, Hermosa 2005, Hermosa 2006, Avondale 2101, Avondale 2102, Avondale 2103, Avondale 2104, Avondale 2105, Avondale 2106, Avondale 2107, Avondale 2108, Avondale 2109, Logan Square 2201, Logan Square 2202, Logan Square 2203, Logan Square 2204, Logan Square 2205, Logan Square 2206, Logan Square 2207, Logan Square 2208, Logan Square 2209, Logan Square 2210, Logan Square 2211, Logan Square 2212, Logan Square 2213, Logan Square 2214, Logan Square 2215, Logan Square 2216, Logan Square 2217, Logan Square 2218, Logan Square 2219, Logan Square 2220, Logan Square 2221, Logan Square 2222, Logan Square 2223, Logan Square 2224, Logan Square 2225, Logan Square 2226, Logan Square 2227, Logan Square 2228, Logan Square 2229, Humboldt Park 2301, Humboldt Park 2302, Humboldt Park 2303, Humboldt Park 2304, Humboldt Park 2305, Humboldt Park 2306, Humboldt Park 2307, Humboldt Park 2308, Humboldt Park 2309, Humboldt Park 2310, Humboldt Park 2311, Humboldt Park 2312, Humboldt Park 2313, Humboldt Park 2315, Humboldt Park 2316, Humboldt Park 2317, Humboldt Park 2318, West Town 2401, West Town 2402, West Town 2403, West Town 2404, West Town 2405, West Town 2406, West Town 2407, West Town 2408, West Town 2409, West Town 2410, West Town 2411, West Town 2412, West Town 2413, West Town 2414, West Town 2415, West Town 2416, West Town 2417, West Town 2418, West Town 2419, West Town 2420, West Town 2421, West Town 2422, West Town 2423, West Town 2424, West Town 2425, West Town 2426, West Town 2427, West Town 2428, West Town 2429, West Town 2430, West Town 2431, West Town 2432, West Town 2433, West Town 2434, West Town 2435, West Town 2436, Austin 2501, Austin 2502, Austin 2503, Austin 2504, Austin 2505, Austin 2506, Austin 2507, Austin 2508, Austin 2509, Austin 2510, Austin 2511, Austin 2512, Austin 2513, Austin 2514, Austin 2515, Austin 2516, Austin 2517, Austin 2518, Austin 2519, Austin 2520, Austin 2521, Austin 2522, Austin 2523, Austin 2524, West Garfield Park 2601, West Garfield Park 2602, West Garfield Park 2603, West Garfield Park 2604, West Garfield Park 2605, West Garfield Park 2606, West Garfield Park 2607, West Garfield Park 2608, West Garfield Park 2609, West Garfield Park 2610, East Garfield Park 2701, East Garfield Park 2702, East Garfield Park 2703, East Garfield Park 2704, East Garfield Park 2705, East Garfield Park 2706, East Garfield Park 2707, East Garfield Park 2708, East Garfield Park 2709, East Garfield Park 2710, East Garfield Park 2711, East Garfield Park 2712, East Garfield Park 2713, East Garfield Park 2714, East Garfield Park 2715, East Garfield Park 2716, East Garfield Park 2717, East Garfield Park 2718, East Garfield Park 2719, Near West Side 2801, Near West Side 2802, Near West Side 2803, Near West Side 2804, Near West Side 2805, Near West Side 2806, Near West Side 2807, Near West Side 2808, Near West Side 2809, Near West Side 2810, Near West Side 2811, Near West Side 2812, Near West Side 2813, Near West Side 2814, Near West Side 2815, Near West Side 2816, Near West Side 2817, Near West Side 2818, Near West Side 2819, Near West Side 2822, Near West Side 2823, Near West Side 2824, Near West Side 2825, Near West Side 2826, Near West Side 2827, Near West Side 2828, Near West Side 2829, 350 Table A.1 (cont’d) Near West Side 2830, Near West Side 2831, Near West Side 2832, Near West Side 2833, Near West Side 2835, Near West Side 2836, Near West Side 2837, Near West Side 2838, Near West Side 2839, Near West Side 2840, Near West Side 2841, Near West Side 2842, Near West Side 2843, North Lawndale 2902, North Lawndale 2903, North Lawndale 2904, North Lawndale 2905, North Lawndale 2906, North Lawndale 2907, North Lawndale 2908, North Lawndale 2909, North Lawndale 2910, North Lawndale 2911, North Lawndale 2912, North Lawndale 2913, North Lawndale 2914, North Lawndale 2915, North Lawndale 2916, North Lawndale 2917, North Lawndale 2918, North Lawndale 2919, North Lawndale 2920, North Lawndale 2921, North Lawndale 2922, North Lawndale 2923, North Lawndale 2924, North Lawndale 2925, North Lawndale 2926, South Lawndale 3001, South Lawndale 3002, South Lawndale 3003, South Lawndale 3004, South Lawndale 3005, South Lawndale 3006, South Lawndale 3007, South Lawndale 3008, South Lawndale 3009, South Lawndale 3010, South Lawndale 3011, South Lawndale 3012, South Lawndale 3013, South Lawndale 3014, South Lawndale 3015, South Lawndale 3016, South Lawndale 3017, South Lawndale 3018, South Lawndale 3019, South Lawndale 3020, Lower West Side 3101, Lower West Side 3102, Lower West Side 3103, Lower West Side 3104, Lower West Side 3105, Lower West Side 3106, Lower West Side 3107, Lower West Side 3108, Lower West Side 3109, Lower West Side 3110, Lower West Side 3111, Lower West Side 3112, Lower West Side 3113, Lower West Side 3114, Loop 3201, Loop 3202, Loop 3204, Loop 3205, Loop 3206, Near South Side 3301, Near South Side 3302, Near South Side 3303, Near South Side 3304, Near South Side 3305, Armour Square 3401, Armour Square 3402, Armour Square 3403, Armour Square 3404, Armour Square 3405, Armour Square 3406, Douglas 3501, Douglas 3502, Douglas 3503, Douglas 3504, Douglas 3506, Douglas 3507, Douglas 3508, Douglas 3509, Douglas 3510, Douglas 3511, Douglas 3512, Douglas 3513, Douglas 3514, Douglas 3515, Oakland 3601, Oakland 3602, Oakland 3603, Oakland 3604, Oakland 3605, Fuller Park 3701, Fuller Park 3702, Fuller Park 3703, Fuller Park 3704, Grand Boulevard 3801, Grand Boulevard 3802, Grand Boulevard 3803, Grand Boulevard 3804, Grand Boulevard 3805, Grand Boulevard 3806, Grand Boulevard 3807, Grand Boulevard 3808, Grand Boulevard 3809, Grand Boulevard 3810, Grand Boulevard 3811, Grand Boulevard 3812, Grand Boulevard 3813, Grand Boulevard 3814, Grand Boulevard 3815, Grand Boulevard 3816, Grand Boulevard 3817, Grand Boulevard 3818, Grand Boulevard 3819, Grand Boulevard 3820, Kenwood 3901, Kenwood 3902, Kenwood 3903, Kenwood 3904, Kenwood 3905, Kenwood 3906, Kenwood 3907, Washington Park 4001, Washington Park 4002, Washington Park 4003, Washington Park 4004, Washington Park 4005, Washington Park 4006, Washington Park 4007, Washington Park 4008, Hyde Park 4101, Hyde Park 4102, Hyde Park 4103, Hyde Park 4104, Hyde Park 4105, Hyde Park 4106, Hyde Park 4107, Hyde Park 4108, Hyde Park 4109, Hyde Park 4110, Hyde Park 4111, Hyde Park 4112, Hyde Park 4113, Hyde Park 4114, Woodlawn 4201, Woodlawn 4202, Woodlawn 4203, Woodlawn 4204, Woodlawn 4205, Woodlawn 4206, Woodlawn 4207, Woodlawn 4208, Woodlawn 4209, Woodlawn 4210, Woodlawn 4211, Woodlawn 4212, South Shore 4301, South Shore 4302, South Shore 4303, South Shore 4304, South Shore 4305, South Shore 4306, South Shore 4307, South Shore 4308, South Shore 4309, South Shore 4310, South Shore 4311, South Shore 4312, South Shore 4313, South Shore 4314, Chatham 4401, Chatham 4402, Chatham 4403, Chatham 4404, Chatham 4406, Chatham 4407, Chatham 4408, Chatham 4409, Avalon Park 4501, Avalon Park 4502, 351 Table A.1 (cont’d) Avalon Park 4503, South Chicago 4601, South Chicago 4602, South Chicago 4603, South Chicago 4604, South Chicago 4605, South Chicago 4606, South Chicago 4607, South Chicago 4608, South Chicago 4609, South Chicago 4610, Burnside 4701, Calumet Heights 4801, Calumet Heights 4802, Calumet Heights 4803, Calumet Heights 4804, Calumet Heights 4805, Roseland 4901, Roseland 4902, Roseland 4903, Roseland 4904, Roseland 4905, Roseland 4906, Roseland 4907, Roseland 4908, Roseland 4909, Roseland 4910, Roseland 4911, Roseland 4912, Roseland 4913, Roseland 4914, Pullman 5001, Pullman 5002, Pullman 5003, South Deering 5101, South Deering 5102, South Deering 5103, South Deering 5105, East Side 5201, East Side 5202, East Side 5203, East Side 5204, East Side 5205, East Side 5206, West Pullman 5301, West Pullman 5302, West Pullman 5303, West Pullman 5304, West Pullman 5305, West Pullman 5306, Riverdale 5401, Hegewisch 5501, Hegewisch 5502, Garfield Ridge 5601, Garfield Ridge 5602, Garfield Ridge 5603, Garfield Ridge 5604, Garfield Ridge 5605, Garfield Ridge 5606, Garfield Ridge 5607, Garfield Ridge 5608, Garfield Ridge 5609, Garfield Ridge 5610, Garfield Ridge 5611, Archer Heights 5701, Archer Heights 5702, Archer Heights 5703, Archer Heights 5704, Archer Heights 5705, Brighton Park 5801, Brighton Park 5802, Brighton Park 5803, Brighton Park 5804, Brighton Park 5805, Brighton Park 5806, Brighton Park 5807, Brighton Park 5808, Brighton Park 5809, Brighton Park 5811, McKinley Park 5901, McKinley Park 5902, McKinley Park 5903, McKinley Park 5904, McKinley Park 5905, McKinley Park 5906, McKinley Park 5907, Bridgeport 6001, Bridgeport 6002, Bridgeport 6003, Bridgeport 6004, Bridgeport 6005, Bridgeport 6006, Bridgeport 6007, Bridgeport 6008, Bridgeport 6009, Bridgeport 6010, Bridgeport 6011, Bridgeport 6012, Bridgeport 6013, Bridgeport 6014, Bridgeport 6015, Bridgeport 6016, New City 6101, New City 6102, New City 6103, New City 6104, New City 6105, New City 6106, New City 6107, New City 6108, New City 6109, New City 6110, New City 6111, New City 6112, New City 6113, New City 6114, New City 6115, New City 6116, New City 6117, New City 6118, New City 6119, New City 6120, New City 6121, New City 6122, West Elsdon 6201, West Elsdon 6202, West Elsdon 6203, West Elsdon 6204, Gage Park 6301, Gage Park 6302, Gage Park 6303, Gage Park 6304, Gage Park 6305, Gage Park 6306, Gage Park 6307, Gage Park 6308, Gage Park 6309, Clearing 6401, Clearing 6403, Clearing 6404, Clearing 6405, Clearing 6406, Clearing 6407, Clearing 6408, West Lawn 6501, West Lawn 6502, West Lawn 6503, West Lawn 6505, Chicago Lawn 6601, Chicago Lawn 6602, Chicago Lawn 6603, Chicago Lawn 6604, Chicago Lawn 6605, Chicago Lawn 6606, Chicago Lawn 6607, Chicago Lawn 6608, Chicago Lawn 6609, Chicago Lawn 6610, Chicago Lawn 6611, West Englewood 6701, West Englewood 6702, West Englewood 6703, West Englewood 6704, West Englewood 6705, West Englewood 6706, West Englewood 6707, West Englewood 6708, West Englewood 6709, West Englewood 6710, West Englewood 6711, West Englewood 6712, West Englewood 6713, West Englewood 6714, West Englewood 6715, West Englewood 6716, West Englewood 6717, West Englewood 6718, West Englewood 6719, West Englewood 6720, Englewood 6801, Englewood 6802, Englewood 6803, Englewood 6804, Englewood 6805, Englewood 6806, Englewood 6807, Englewood 6808, Englewood 6809, Englewood 6810, Englewood 6811, Englewood 6812, Englewood 6813, Englewood 6814, Greater Grand Crossing 6901, Greater Grand Crossing 6902, Greater Grand Crossing 6903, Greater Grand Crossing 6904, Greater Grand Crossing 6905, Greater Grand Crossing 6906, Greater Grand Crossing 6907, Greater Grand Crossing 6908, Greater Grand Crossing 6909, 352 Table A.1 (cont’d) Greater Grand Crossing 6910, Greater Grand Crossing 6911, Greater Grand Crossing 6912, Greater Grand Crossing 6913, Greater Grand Crossing 6914, Greater Grand Crossing 6915, Ashburn 7001, Ashburn 7002, Ashburn 7003, Ashburn 7004, Ashburn 7005, Auburn Gresham 7101, Auburn Gresham 7102, Auburn Gresham 7103, Auburn Gresham 7104, Auburn Gresham 7105, Auburn Gresham 7106, Auburn Gresham 7107, Auburn Gresham 7108, Auburn Gresham 7109, Auburn Gresham 7110, Auburn Gresham 7111, Auburn Gresham 7112, Auburn Gresham 7113, Auburn Gresham 7114, Auburn Gresham 7115, Beverly 7201, Beverly 7202, Beverly 7203, Beverly 7204, Beverly 7205, Beverly 7206, Beverly 7207, Washington Heights 7301, Washington Heights 7302, Washington Heights 7303, Washington Heights 7304, Washington Heights 7305, Washington Heights 7306, Washington Heights 7307, Mount Greenwood 7401, Mount Greenwood 7402, Mount Greenwood 7403, Mount Greenwood 7404, Morgan Park 7501, Morgan Park 7502, Morgan Park 7503, Morgan Park 7504, Morgan Park 7505, Morgan Park 7506 353 APPENDIX B: PCA Results from Systat 13 Latent Roots (Eigenvalues) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7.80 4.24 2.74 2.40 1.95 1.62 1.48 1.28 1.05 0.90 0.76 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.48 0.46 0.38 0.33 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.11 9 0 3 4 4 1 3 0 8 1 7 6 7 3 3 2 6 0 4 2 5 9 4 Latent Roots (Eigenvalues) (Contd.) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0.0910.0790.067 0.0340.0260.020 0.0010.001 Component Loadings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PROPR7_0 0.789 0.067 -0.265-0.433 0.061 0.201 0.020 0.118 -0.127 FHHPR7_0 0.761 0.286 -0.216-0.317 0.054 0.269 -0.0370.148 -0.030 FIAPR7_0 0.711 0.259 -0.109-0.032 0.065 0.270 0.033 -0.2350.064 JOBPR7_0 0.708 0.221 0.013 0.114 0.007 0.100 0.042 -0.3820.029 FAMPR7_0 0.679 0.187 -0.282-0.524 0.008 0.266 -0.0310.085 -0.106 HHPR7_0 0.671 0.342 0.097 0.412 0.032 -0.1040.185 0.389 0.092 CGPR7_0 0.669 -0.021-0.303-0.368 -0.0550.079 0.114 0.031 -0.107 PCIAPR7_0 0.669 -0.4680.009 0.252 0.170 -0.0280.205 -0.0680.033 UNIPR7_0 0.658 0.351 0.042 0.427 0.013 -0.1070.225 0.378 0.088 POPPR7_0 0.646 0.436 0.275 -0.272 -0.106-0.101-0.203-0.1170.071 _25PR7_0 0.636 0.388 0.336 0.055 -0.0080.024 -0.277-0.2420.036 JOBPR27_0 0.574 -0.4120.244 0.108 0.081 -0.0400.270 -0.214-0.295 CGPR27_0 0.547 -0.6050.218 0.040 0.212 -0.0880.119 -0.105-0.153 ROPR27_0 -0.5250.551 0.161 0.177 0.099 0.320 -0.0030.078 -0.380 OOPR27_0 0.506 -0.548-0.140-0.197 -0.120-0.3220.016 -0.0380.398 PROPR27_0 0.357 -0.6070.003 -0.039 0.268 -0.0660.128 0.149 -0.193 WPPR27_0 0.195 -0.593-0.2150.370 -0.2480.322 -0.2890.149 0.013 VACPR27_0 -0.1750.224 -0.7840.204 -0.282-0.0510.149 -0.280-0.065 HHPR27_0 0.171 -0.2350.775 -0.208 0.285 0.050 -0.1470.286 0.064 GRAPR7_0 0.414 0.305 0.131 0.519 0.012 0.059 -0.065-0.3710.021 BPPR27_0 -0.1760.495 -0.066-0.244 0.597 -0.3850.101 -0.1450.091 HPPR27_0 -0.1260.355 0.417 -0.229 -0.5530.085 0.299 -0.048-0.138 FHHPR27_0 -0.0830.243 -0.4550.154 0.533 0.086 -0.3660.145 0.031 ESTPR7_0 0.224 0.036 -0.0990.135 -0.228-0.577-0.4860.002 -0.339 OOPR7_0 0.477 0.041 -0.144-0.174 -0.218-0.518-0.3490.136 -0.283 WPPR7_0 0.307 0.007 0.039 0.025 -0.2200.065 -0.310-0.0280.525 PAIPR27_0 -0.3760.409 -0.125-0.126 0.165 0.016 -0.0460.237 0.093 MANPR27_0-0.1090.306 0.320 -0.326 -0.466-0.1770.207 0.128 0.091 ROPR7_0 0.456 0.490 0.390 0.373 0.091 0.032 -0.1770.041 -0.089 BPPR7_0 -0.0970.329 -0.016-0.189 0.391 -0.3730.260 -0.1950.078 VACPR7_0 0.429 0.318 -0.3500.380 -0.165-0.2080.390 0.285 0.048 Table B.1: PCA results from Systat 13. 354 Table B.1 (cont’d) Variance Explained by Components 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7.8094.2402.7432.404 1.9541.6211.4831.280 1.058 Percent of Total Variance Explained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 25.190 13.676 8.8507.7566.302 5.2304.7834.1283.414 Rotated Loading Matrix (VARIMAX, Gamma = 1.000000) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 FAMPR7_0 0.961 0.029 0.009 0.089 0.003 0.060 0.000 0.034 0.057 PROPR7_0 0.935 0.204 0.038 0.079 0.020 0.086 0.055 0.130 0.084 FHHPR7_0 0.886 0.003 0.058 0.236 0.023 0.029 0.063 0.233 0.058 CGPR7_0 0.765 0.264 -0.1130.007 0.013 0.103 -0.0330.106 0.142 FIAPR7_0 0.592 0.153 -0.1000.538 -0.013-0.1210.064 0.153 0.092 JOBPR27_0 0.143 0.834 0.097 0.198 0.064 0.031 -0.0770.074 -0.054 CGPR27_0 0.119 0.834 0.253 0.057 0.085 0.055 0.109 0.010 0.127 PCIAPR7_0 0.161 0.748 0.044 0.161 0.135 -0.0610.203 0.275 0.237 PROPR27_0 0.163 0.662 0.215 -0.264 0.094 0.054 0.229 0.056 0.048 PAIPR27_0 -0.018-0.5480.026 -0.179 -0.249-0.0760.091 0.055 -0.147 VACPR27_0 0.017 -0.197-0.933-0.053 -0.0020.049 0.088 0.034 -0.032 HHPR27_0 -0.0160.200 0.931 0.038 0.003 -0.049-0.082-0.0360.033 _25PR7_0 0.292 0.032 0.227 0.780 -0.0470.188 -0.0820.108 0.078 GRAPR7_0 -0.0650.133 -0.1460.768 0.029 -0.0030.080 0.233 -0.046 ROPR7_0 0.053 -0.0530.282 0.686 -0.0070.146 0.008 0.410 -0.210 JOBPR7_0 0.388 0.284 -0.1360.660 -0.049-0.017-0.0120.150 0.108 POPPR7_0 0.485 -0.0550.247 0.565 -0.1750.273 -0.2640.099 0.187 BPPR27_0 0.008 -0.2300.021 0.026 -0.8870.011 0.196 -0.011-0.068 WPPR27_0 -0.0240.238 -0.072-0.057 0.807 0.021 0.307 0.017 0.179 BPPR7_0 -0.026-0.031-0.0590.010 -0.742-0.0310.009 0.024 -0.009 ESTPR7_0 -0.0600.045 -0.0920.143 0.058 0.877 0.058 0.051 0.035 OOPR7_0 0.322 0.101 0.000 0.033 -0.0080.814 -0.0420.123 0.145 HPPR27_0 0.016 -0.1850.016 0.097 0.010 -0.063-0.834-0.018-0.218 FHHPR27_0 0.102 -0.357-0.0650.012 -0.1360.037 0.750 0.067 -0.120 MANPR27_00.010 -0.2670.105 -0.074 -0.1270.072 -0.7140.079 0.073 UNIPR7_0 0.205 0.100 0.062 0.325 0.004 0.060 0.010 0.887 0.028 HHPR7_0 0.204 0.101 0.131 0.345 0.009 0.073 0.014 0.870 0.034 VACPR7_0 0.169 0.044 -0.3900.060 -0.0350.080 -0.0390.813 0.050 OOPR27_0 0.203 0.464 0.009 -0.129 0.057 0.147 0.010 0.033 0.771 ROPR27_0 -0.208-0.4870.017 0.097 -0.052-0.155-0.043-0.019-0.761 WPPR7_0 0.098 -0.1680.100 0.313 0.234 -0.0050.007 0.050 0.564 "Variance" Explained by Rotated Components 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4.4103.8662.3363.351 2.2271.6962.1412.701 1.865 355 Table B.1 (cont’d) Percent of Total Variance Explained 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14.226 12.472 7.53510.809 7.1835.471 6.9058.7136.015 356 APPENDIX C: PCA Factor Mapping Figure C.1: Factor 1 mapping. 357 Figure C.2: Factor 2 mapping. 358 Figure C.3: Factor 3 mapping. 359 Figure C.4: Factor 4 mapping. 360 Figure C.5: Factor 5 mapping. 361 Figure C.6: Factor 6 mapping. 362 Figure C.7: Factor 7 mapping. 363 Figure C.8: Factor 8 mapping. 364 Figure C.9: Factor 9 mapping. 365 APPENDIX D: Incremental-F Results #Grps Between SS 2 620.692 df Within SS 9 df 6993.308 F 7,605 74.998 TSS R2 7614.00 0.08152 IncF 3 1195.422 18 6418.578 7,596 78.595 7614.00 0.157003 201.9164 4 1785.740 27 5828.260 7,587 86.097 7614.00 0.234534 171.2737 5 2581.613 36 5032.387 7,578 107.986 7614.00 0.339061 213.9140 6 2858.122 45 4755.878 7,569 101.083 7614.00 0.375377 65.5243 7 3474.378 54 4139.622 7,560 117.502 7614.00 0.456314 143.7849 8 4081.672 63 3532.328 7,551 138.497 7614.00 0.536075 145.2763 9 4388.306 72 3225.694 7,542 142.504 7614.00 0.576347 71.3900 10 4547.061 81 3066.939 7,533 137.882 7614.00 0.597197 34.9817 11 5038.066 90 2575.934 7,524 163.507 7614.00 0.661685 117.0880 12 5236.444 99 2377.556 7,515 167.186 7614.00 0.687739 46.9755 13 5366.594 108 2247.406 7,506 165.959 7614.00 0.704832 30.0916 14 5510.645 117 2103.355 7,497 167.877 7614.00 0.723752 33.0397 15 5643.293 126 1970.707 7,488 170.179 7614.00 0.741173 30.3029 16 5711.896 135 1902.104 7,479 166.363 7614.00 0.750183 15.2202 17 5779.862 144 1834.138 7,470 163.472 7614.00 0.75911 14.7156 5836.107 153 1777.893 7,461 160.075 7614.00 0.766497 11.8634 18 Table D.1: Results of incremental-F test to determine approporiate number of clusters to extract. 366 BIBLIOGRAPHY 367 BIBLIOGRAPHY (1966). National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended. 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. United States of America, United States Congress. 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq: 34-96. (2009). A Bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of designating the study area as the Black Metropolis National Heritage Area in the State of Illinois, and for other purposes. H. R. 4004. United States of America, United States House of Representatives. H. R. 4004. Abu-Lughod, J. L. (1999). New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America's Global Cities. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (1979). The Contribution of Historic Preservation to Urban Revitalization. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (2002). "The National Historic Preservation Program: Overview." Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://www.achp.gov/overview.html. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (2006). Final Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Allison, E. (2005). Gentrification in Historic Districts: Public Policy Considerations in the Designation of Historic Districts in New York City. Ph.D., Columbia University. Altshuler, A. and D. Luberoff (2003). Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution. Angle, P., T. J. Mulhaney and O. M. Forkert (1963). City in a Garden: Homes in the Lincoln Park Community. Chicago, The Coach House Press, Inc. Anonymous (1954). Old Buildings Don't Have to be Slums. Chicago Daily Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1961). Househunter's New Target: Midtown Manors. Preservation News. Washington, DC, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1: 4. 368 Anonymous (1964). Group in Old Town Will Oppose Renewal High Rises. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1966). Priority Issue Continues in Lincoln Park Area Plan. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1971). Those Four-Plus-Ones. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1973). What Price Freed? Chicago Defender. Chicago: 32. Anonymous (1976). Edgewater Group Protests CHA Housing. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1982). Edgewater's Residents are Involved. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1982). Rehab Tax Law Conference Set. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: B2B. Anonymous (1982). Tax Breaks on Historic Buildings Explained in Upcoming Seminars. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: A11. Anonymous (1986). Protest Against Yup-Town. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Anonymous (1987). Preservation Chicago Restores Old Buildings. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Anonymous (1988). Uptown's Boom is Called Bust. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Anonymous (1990). The 1990 House Hunt Book Profiles 278 Communities. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Anonymous (1990). "Cross Section." Historic Preservation News XXX(11): 12. Anonymous (1991). "Yondorf Block and Hall, Chicago." CRM 14(Bonus Issue): 21, 29. Anonymous (2000). Historic Preservation Is Topic Of Seminar. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. 369 Atkinson, R. (2000). "Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London." Urban Studies 37(1): 149-165. Atkinson, R. (2003). "Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker? The Many Meanings and Problems of Gentrification." Urban Studies 40(12): 23432350. Atkinson, R. (2004). "The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?" European Journal of Housing Policy 4(1): 107-131. Atkinson, R. and G. Bridge, Eds. (2005). Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. Housing and Society Series. New York, Routledge. Avery, S. (1961). Rehabilitation Is Key to Lincoln Park Plan. Chicago Daily Tribune. Chicago. Badcock, B. (1989). "An Australian View of the Rent Gap Hypothesis." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 79(1): 125-145. Bader, M. D. M. (2011). "Reassessing Residential Preferences for Redevelopment." City & Community 10(3): 311-337. Baxter, H. L. (2009). Toward a Theory of Gentrification. Ph.D., Miami University. Beauregard, R. A. (1986). The Chaos and Complexity of Gentrification. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams. Winchester, MA, Allen & Unwin, Inc.: 35-55. Beauregard, R. A. (1990). "Trajectories of Neighborhood Change: The Case of Gentrification." Environment and Planning A 22: 855-874. Benjamin, R. (1980). Smoldering Problem Explodes in Uptown. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Bennett, L. (1990). Fragments of Cities: The New American Downtowns and Neighborhoods. Columbus, The Ohio State University Press. Bennett, L. (1997). Neighborhood Politics: Chicago and Sheffield. New York, Garland Publishing, Inc. 370 Bennett, L. (2005). "Gentrification." The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago Retrieved 1/2/2012, 2012, from http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/511.html. Bennett, L. (2010). The Third City: Chicago and American Urbanism. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Berg, A. and J. Roberson (2003). Preservation Isn't the Only Way to Foster City's Future. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Bergmann, J. (1998). Bracing for the Battle of Uptown. Chicago Reader. Chicago. Berry, B. J. L. (1985). Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay. The New Urban Reality. P. E. Peterson. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution: 69-96. Betancur, J. J. (1996). "The Settlement Experience of Latinos in Chicago: Segregation, Speculation, and the Ecology Model." Social Forces 74(4): 1299-1324. Betancur, J. J. (2002). "The Politics of Gentrification: The Case of West Town in Chicago." Urban Affairs Review 37(6): 780-814. Betancur, J. J. (2005). Gentrification before Gentrification? The Plight of Pilsen in Chicago. A Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement White Paper. Chicago, Urban Planning and Policy Program, University of Illinois at Chicago: 76. Betancur, J. J. (2011). "Gentrification and Community Fabric in Chicago." Urban Studies 48(2): 383-406. Betancur, J. J., I. Domeyko and P. A. Wright (2001). Gentrification in West Town: Contested Ground. Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago, Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement: 52. Blommaert, L. (1998). Article of Secession. Chicago Reader. Chicago. Bluestone, D. (1994). "Preservation and Renewal in Post-World War II Chicago." Journal of Architectural Education 47(4): 210-223. Bourne, L. S. (1981). The Geography of Housing. New York, John Wiley & Sons. 371 Bourne, L. S. (1993). "The Demise of Gentrification? A Commentary and Prospective View." Urban Geography 14(1): 95-107. Boyd, M. (2000). "Reconstructing Bronzeville: Racial Nostalgia and Neighborhood Development." Journal of Urban Affairs 22(2): 107-122. Boyd, M. (2005). "The Downside of Racial Uplift: The Meaning of Gentrification in an African-American Neighborhood." City & Society 17(2): 265-288. Boyd, M. (2008). "Defensive Development: The Role of Racial Conflict in Gentrification." Urban Affairs Review 43(6): 751-776. Bradford, C. P. and L. S. Rubinowitz (1975). "The Urban-Suburban InvestmentDisinvestment Process: Consequences for Older Neighborhoods." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 422: 77-86. Bridge, G. (1994). "Gentrification, Class, and Residence: A Reappraisal." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12: 31-51. Bridge, G. (2001). "Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The Gentrification Premium in the Sydney Housing Market." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25(1): 87-101. Bridge, G. (2003). "Time-Space Trajectories in Provincial Gentrification." Urban Studies 40(12): 2545-2556. Bridge, G. (2006). "Perspectives on Cultural Capital and the Neighbourhood." Urban Studies 43(4): 719-730. Bridge, G. (2007). "A Global Gentrifier Class?" Environment and Planning A 39: 32-46. Britton, M. (1979). "Lakewood-Balmoral Residents' Council Beginnings." Newsletter VII(5): n. pag. Brodt, B. (1979). As Newcomers Move In, Others Have to Move Out. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Brookstein, M. D. (2000-2001). "When History is History: Maxwell Street, "Integrity," and the Failure of Historic Preservation Law." Chicago-Kent Law Review 76: 18471885. 372 Brotman, B. (1981). The Eternal Urban Dilemma: 'Renewal' Means Removal. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Brotman, B. (1981). House Story--"Rich" Move In, Poor Move On. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: B1. Brott, J. (1988). FOCUS: Chicago; The Last Blight in Buena Park. New York Times. New York. Brown-Saracino, J. (2004). "Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic Community." City & Community 3(2): 135-156. Brown-Saracino, J. (2007). "Virtuous Marginality: Social Preservationists and the Selection of the Old-Timer." Theoretical Sociology 36: 437-468. Brown-Saracino, J. (2009). A Neighborhood That Never Changes: Gentrification, Social Preservation, and the Search for Authenticity. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Bruegmann, R. (1993). Schaumburg, Oak Brook, Rosemont, and the Recentering of the Chicago Metropolitan Area. Chicago Architecture and Design, 1923-1993: Reconfiguration of an American Metropolis. J. Zukowsky. Munich, Prestel and the Art Institute of Chicago: 159-177. Bryant, D. C. J. and H. W. J. McGee (1983). "Gentrification and the Law: Combatting Urban Displacement." Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 25(43): 43-144. Buck, G. (2002). Chicago Tribune House Hunter Column. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Buder, S. (1967). Pullman: An Experiment in Industrial Order and Community Planning, 1880-1930. New York, Oxford University Press. Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity, and the Rise of Sociological Research. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Bures, R. M. (2001). "Historic Preservation, Gentrification, and Tourism: The Transformation of Charleston, South Carolina." Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment 6: 195-209. 373 Busk, C. (1986). Sheridan Pk. Historic Status Sparks Rebirth. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Busk, C. (2004). Edgewater Regains Past Glory: Vintage Homes, Prime Location Behing Resurgence. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Butler, P. (2013). Chattering Classes 'To be Priced out of Islington Housing Market'. The Guardian. London: n. pag. Butler, T. (2003). "Living in the Bubble: Gentrification and Its 'Others' in London." Urban Studies 40(12): 2469-2486. Butler, T. (2007). "For Gentrification?" Environment and Planning A 39(162-181). Butler, T. and L. Lees (2006). "Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and Gentrifying Global Elites at the Neighbourhood Level." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31(4): 467-487. Byrne, J. P. (2012). "Historic Preservation and its Cultured Dispisers: Reflections on the Contemporary Role of Preservation Law in Urban Development." George Mason Law Review 19(3): 665-688. Cahan, R. (1994). They All Fall Down: Richard Nickel's Struggle to Save America's Architecture. Washington, D.C., The Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Cassidy, R. (1980). Livable Cities: A Grass-Roots Guide to Rebuilding Urban America. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Castells, M. (1983). The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Chandler, S. (2006). Flaunting It: Mammoth Mansions Rise in Lincoln Park as Chicago's Wealthiest Parade Their Bankrolls. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Chatterton, P. (1999). "University Students and City Centres--The Formation of Exclusive Geographies: The Case of Bristol, UK." Geoforum 30: 117-133. 374 Chatterton, P. and R. Hollands (2002). "Theorising Urban Playscapes: Producing, Regulating and Consuming Youthful Nightlife City Spaces." Urban Studies 39(1): 95-116. City of Chicago (n.d.). Economic Incentives for the Repair and Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Chicago, City of Chicago: 2. Clark, E. (1987). The Rent Gap and Urban Change: Case Studies in Malmö 1860-1985. Lund, Lund University Press. Clark, E. (1992). "On Blindness, Centrepieces and Complementarity in Gentrification Theory." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17(3): 358-362. Clark, E. (1992). "On Gaps in Gentrification Theory." Housing Studies 7(1): 16-26. Clark, E. (1995). "The Rent Gap Re-examined." Urban Studies 32(9): 1489-1503. Clark, E. (2005). The Order and Simplicity of Gentrification - A Political Challenge. Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. R. Atkinson and G. Bridge. New York, Routledge: 256-264. Clark, E. (2005). Social Implications of Upgraded Heritage. International Conference for Integrating Urban Knowledge & Practice. Goteborg, Sweden. Clay, P. L. (1979). Neighborhood Renewal: Middle-Class Resettlement and Incumbent Upgrading in American Neighborhoods. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. Cleaver, J. (1990). "Teardowns Build in Popularity in Older, Historic Communities." Crain's Chicago Business 13(27). Cohen, J. R. (1998). "Combining Historic Preservation and Income Class Integration: A Case Study of the Butchers Hill Neighborhood of Baltimore." Housing Policy Debate 9(3): 663-697. Cohen, M. (1980). "Historic Preservation and Public Policy: The Case of Chicago." The Urban Interest 2(2): 3-11. Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks (1977). Old Town Triangle District: Historical Plaque. 375 Commission on Chicago Landmarks (2014). Landmarks Ordinance and the Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Department of Planning and Development-Bureau of Zoning and Land Use. Chicago, City of Chicago. Condit, C. W. (1974). Chicago 1930-1970: Building, Planning, and Urban Technology. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Cook County Assessor's Office. (2014). "Incentives/Special Assessment Properties." Retrieved June 30, 2014, from http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/specialassessmentproperties.aspx. Cormack, R. M. (1971). "A Review of Classification." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A - Statistics in Society 134(3): 321-367. Cotton, R. (1988). Tax Breaks Can Offer Restoration Incentive. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago: 35. Cresswell, T. and G. Hoskins (2008). "Place, Persistence, and Practice: Evaluating Historical Significance at Angel Island, San Francisco, and Maxwell Street, Chicago." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98(2): 392-413. Cronon, W. (1991). Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York, W W Norton & Company. Cross, R. (1974). Uptown's Future: Are the Swingers at the Gates? Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Curran, W. (2004). "Gentrification and the Nature of Work: Exploring the Links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn." Environment and Planning A 37(7): 1243-1258. Curran, W. (2006). Gentrification: A Case Study. Chicago's Geographies: Metropolis for the 21st Century. R. P. Greene, M. J. Bouman and D. Grammenos. Washington, D.C., Association of American Geographers: 259-263. Cutler, I. (2006). Chicago, Metropolis of the Mid-Continent. Carbondale, IL, Southern Illinois University Press. Cybriwsky, R. A. (1978). "Social Aspects of Neighborhood Change." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 68(1): 17-33. 376 Datel, R. E. and D. J. Dingemans (1980). "Historic Preservation and Urban Change." Urban Geography 1(3): 229-253. Davidson, M. and L. Lees (2010). "New-Build Gentrification: It's Histories, Trajectories, and Critical Geographies." Population, Space and Place 16: 395-411. de la Torre, M. and R. Mason (1998). Economics and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles, Getty Conservation Institute. de Wit, W. (1993). The Rise of Public Housing in Chicago, 1930-1960. Chicago Architecture and Design, 1923-1993: Reconfiguration of an American Metropolis. J. Zukowsky. Munich, Prestel and the Art Institute of Chicago: 223-245. DeBaise, C. (1998). It's Hard to Tell Today, but Lincoln Park Once Was an... Chicago Tribune. Chicago. DeBat, D. (1988). Historic Rehabs Revive Sheridan Park. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. DeBat, D. (1988). Neighborhood Retains Unique Nature. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. DeBat, D. (1988). Sheridan Park Rehabs Offer Value for Tenants. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. DeBat, D. (1990). Reabbers Fine Edgewater a Fountain of Youth. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. DeBat, D. (1990). Status Gets Ball Rolling: Sheridan Park is on the Rebound. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. DeBat, D. (1994). Diversity is Cornerstone of Edgewater Patchwork. Chicago SunTimes. Chicago. Demšar, U., P. Harris, C. Brunsdon, A. S. Fotheringham and S. McLoone (2013). "Principal Component Analysis and Spatial Data: An Overview." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(1): 106-128. Department of Development and Planning (1976). Historic City: The Settlement of Chicago. Chicago, City of Chicago. 377 Dingle, T. and S. O'Hanlon (2009). "From Manufacturing Zone to Lifestyle Precinct: Economic Restructuring and Social Change in Inner Melbourne, 1971-2001." Australian Economic History Review 49(1): 52-69. Eckerd, A. (2011). "Cleaning Up Without Clearing Out? A Spatial Assessment of Environment Gentrification." Urban Affairs Review 47(1): 31-59. Edgewater Historical Society (2012). Oral History Interview with Marion Volini. Chicago, Edgewater Historical Society. Edgewater Historical Society (2013). Oral History Interview with Horace Fox. Chicago. Edgewater Historical Society (2014). Oral History Interview with Marge Britton. Chicago, Edgewater Historical Society. Edwards, B. (1990). Lakefront Medley: From Housing to Residents, Edgewater's a True Mix. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Eshbach, E. (1975). Old Neighborhood Gets a People Lift: There Goes the Neighborhood... Revitalized! Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Featherstone, M. (1994). City Cultures and Post-Modern Lifestyles. Post-Fordism: A Reader. A. Amin. Oxford, Blackwell: 387-408. Fidel, K. (1992). End of Diversity: The Long-Term Effects of Gentrification in Lincoln Park. Gentrification and Urban Change. R. Hutchison. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press Inc. 2: 145-164. Fitch, J. M. (1992). Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. Charlottesville, VA, University Press of Virginia. FLATS Chicago. (2014). "Uptown Chicago Apartments." Retrieved August 12, 2014, from http://www.flatschicago.com/uptown-chicago-apartments/. Foerstner, A. (1986). Birth of the Neighborhoods: Farms, Brickyards Built Lake View, Lincoln Park. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Freeman, L. (2005). "Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods." Urban Affairs Review 40(4): 463-491. 378 Freeman, L. (2006). There Goes the 'Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, Temple University Press. Freeman, L. and W. Rohe (2000). "Subsidized Housing and Neighborhood Racial Transition: An Empirical Investigation." Housing Policy Debate 11(1): 67-89. Friedenfels, R. (1992). Gentrification in Large American Cities from 1970 to 1980. Gentrification and Urban Change. R. Hutchison. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press Inc. 2: 63-93. Friends of the Uptown. (2014). "Uptown Theater Chicago." Retrieved August 13, 2014, from http://www.uptowntheatre.com/index.html. Gale, D. E. (1979). "Middle Class Resettlement in Old Urban Neighborhoods: The Evidence and the Implications." Journal of the American Planning Association 45(3): 293-304. Gale, D. E. (1984). Neighborhood Revitalization and the Postindustrial City: A Multinational Perspective. Lexington, MA, LexingtonBooks. Gale, D. E. (1991). "The Impacts of Historic District Designation: Planning and Policy Implications." Journal of the American Planning Association 57(3): 325-341. Galster, G. and S. Peacock (1986). "Urban Gentrification: Evaluating Alternative Indicators." Social Indicators Research 18: 321-337. Galvan, M. (1983). Community Looks for an Identity of its Own. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Gapp, P. (1978). Their job: Save history, and more. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Gapp, P. (1980). Landmark Foundations are Shaky. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Garb, M. (1992). Edgewater is Again on Edge of Prosperity. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Gaspar, M. (1977). Tax Break Available for Historic Commercial Properties. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: A2. 379 Gaul, M. T. (1985). Bitter Fight Over Mid North Construction. Lincoln Parker. Chicago: 3. Gellman, E. (2005). "Boys Town." The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago Retrieved 9/2/2014, 2014, from http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/511.html. Gemperle, K. (1999). "Lakewood Balmoral Historic District." Edgewater Scrapbook X(I): 3, 8. Gemperle, K. (2001). "From the President." Edgewater Scrapbook XII(2). Gill, D. (1967). Some See Old Town Becoming Rich Man's Quarter. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Gladstone, D. and J. Preau (2008). "Gentrification in Tourist Cities: Evidence from New Orleans Before and After Hurricane Katrina." Housing Policy Debate 19(1): 137175. Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of Change. London, MacGibbon and Kee. Gold, A. (1976). "The Welfare Economics of Historic Preservation." Connecticut Law Review 8: 348-369. Goodyear, S. J. (1969). Four Plus One Apartments Rile North Siders. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Gotham, K. F. (2005). "Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans' Vieux Carre (French Quarter)." Urban Studies 42(7): 1099-1121. Gregory, I. and P. Ell (2005). "Breaking the Boundaries: Geographical Approaches to Integrating 200 Years of the Census." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A - Statistics in Society 168(Part 2): 419-437. Grimsey, D. and M. K. Lewis (2004). Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Grossman, R. (1983). Experts Pinpoint 10 Likely City Neighborhoods Ripe for Renovation and Bargain Rehab Buys. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. 380 Grossman, R. (1984). Lakewood-Balmoral: One of City's Best-Kept Secrets". Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Guarino, J. (1991). For Some, Tax Freeze is an Historic Event. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: n. pag. Guy, S. (2013). Gay Beyond Boystown. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago: n. pag. Haas, P., P. Nyden, T. Walsh, N. Benefield and C. Giangrece (2002). The Uptown Housing and Land Use Study: A Research Report Prepared for State Representative Larry McKeon, Organization of the NorthEast, and All Residents of the Uptown Community Area. The Center for Urban Research and Learning, Loyola University of Chicago. Hackworth, J. (2002). "Postrecession Gentrification in New York City." Urban Affairs Review 37(6): 815-843. Hackworth, J. (2007). The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. Hackworth, J. and N. Smith (2001). "The Changing State of Gentrification." Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 92(4): 464-477. Halperin, M. (1988). Picking the Next Hot neighborhood? It May Be Nearby.". Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Hammel, D. J. and E. Wyly (1996). "A Model for Identifying Gentrified Areas with Census Data." Urban Geography 17(3): 248-268. Hamnett, C. (1973). "Improvement Grants as an Indicator of Gentrification in Inner London." Area 5(6): 252-261. Hamnett, C. (1991). "The Blind Men and the Elephant: the Explanation of Gentrification." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers N.S.(16): 173-189. Hamnett, C. and D. Whitelegg (2007). "Loft Conversion and Gentrification in London: From Industrial to Postindustrial Land Use." Environment and Planning A 39: 106-124. 381 Handley, J. (1987). Upscale Urban Renewal: Half-Million-Dollar Homes in Lincoln Park. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Harvey, D. (1989). "From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism." Geografiska Annaler 71B(1): 3-17. Hausner, L. (1987). Today's Town Houses are a Longstanding Tradition. Chicago SunTimes. Chicago. Hayden, D. (1995). The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press. He, S. (2007). "State-sponsored Gentrification Under Market Transition: The Case of Shanghai." Urban Affairs Review 43(2): 171-198. Hedin, K., E. Clark, E. Lundholm and G. Malmberg (2012). "Neoliberalization of Housing in Sweden: Gentrification, Filtering, and Social Polarization." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(2): 443-463. Heidkamp, C. P. and S. Lucas (2006). "Finding the Gentrification Frontier Using Census Data: The Case of Portland, Maine." Urban Geography 27(2): 101-125. Helms, A. C. (2003). "Understanding Gentrification: An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of Urban Housing Renovation." Journal of Urban Economics 54: 474-498. Henderson, H. (2007). The High Ground: A Few Fateful Feet of Elevation Set the Uptown Story in Motion. Chicago Reader. Chicago: 4-5. Henig, J. R. (1980). "Gentrification and Displacement Within Cities: A Comparative Analysis." Social Science Quarterly 61(3/4): 638-652. Hinz, G. (1977). Oberman Clashes with Colleague Over Lincoln Pk. Landmark Plans. Lincoln Park Booster. Chicago. Hirsch, A. R. (1983). Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 19401960. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 382 Hirsch, A. R. (2000). ""Containment" on the Home Front: Race and Federal Housing Policy from the New Deal to the Cold War." Journal of Urban History 26(2): 158189. Hirschman, C. (1983). Shrinking Rent Hikes, Growing Demand Make for Brisk Market. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Historic Chicago Bungalow Association. (2014). "Historic Chicago Bungalow Association." Retrieved June 30, 2014, from http://www.chicagobungalow.org/. Hoffman, L. M. (2003). "The Marketing of Diversity in the Inner City: Tourism and Regulation in Harlem." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(2): 286-299. Hollands, R. and P. Chatterton (2003). "Producing Nightlife in the New Urban Entertainment Economy: Corporatization, Branding and Market Segmentation." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(2): 361-385. Horsley, C. B. (1980). "Revitalization" Held to Be Spotty. New York Times. New York: 1, 8. Hosmer, C. B. (1981). Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949. Charlottesville, Published for the Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States by the University Press of Virginia. Houston, J. and S. Ziemba (1986). Obituary: Arthur Rubloff, 83, Colossus Of Real Estate Development. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Howard, J. M. (1987). Where the Action Is: Preservation and Local Governments. The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation's Heritage. R. E. Stipe and A. J. Lee. Washington, D.C., US/ICOMOS: 114-144. Hudson, J. C. (2006). Chicago: A Geography of the City and its Region. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Hudspeth, N. (2003). Gentrification and Decline in Chicago: Defining Neighborhood Change with Census Data. Interpreting Neighborhood Change in Chicago. Chicago. 383 Huebner, J. (2000). Whose Blues Will They Choose? Reader. Chicago. 30(10): 1, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30-31. Hurley, A. (2010). Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities. Philadelphia, Temple University Press. Hyra, D. S. (2008). The New Urban Renewal: The Economic Transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Ibata, D. (1981). Formulas Traced for Urban Renewal. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. (2011). "Property Tax Assessment Freeze " Retrieved December 12, 2011, from http://www.illinois.gov/ihpa/Preserve/Pages/taxfreeze.aspx. Institute for Housing Studies (2013). The State of Rental Housing in Cook County. Chicago, DePaul University. Jackson, K. T. (1987). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York, Oxford University Press. Jackson, M. (2005). "Embodied Energy and Historic Preservation: A Needed Reassessment." APT Bulletin 36(4): 47-52. Jackson, M. (ca.2012). Historic Preservation--Tax Credit Projects in Illinois 2000-2012. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Springfield, IL. Jager, M. (1986). Class Definition and the Aesthetics of Gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams. Winchester, MA, Allen & Unwin, Inc. Jain, A. K., M. N. Murty and P. J. Flynn (1999). "Data Clustering: A Review." ACM Computing Surveys 31(3): 264-323. Jakle, J. A. and D. Wilson (1992). Derelict Landscapes: The Wasting of America's Built Environment. Savage, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Jeffers, G. (2009). Vacant Lot a Reminder of Losing Effort to Save Historic Uptown Home. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. 384 Jessop, B. (2002). "Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A StateTheoretical Perspective." Antipode 34: 452-472. Joint Committee on Taxation (1976). Summary of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (H.R. 10612, 94th Congress, Public Law 94-455). Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal Component Analysis. Seacaucus, N.J., Springer. Joravsky, B. (1988). New Lines in an Old Battle: The Gentrification of Wicker Park. Chicago Reader. Chicago. Joravsky, B. (1990). There Goes the Neighborhood? Edgewater Debates Scattered-Site Housing. Chicago Reader. Chicago. Joravsky, B. (2003). Help Wanted: Preservation Chicago-Style: It's Who You Know. Chicago Reader. Chicago. Judson, J. (2003). "From Gang-Bangers to Urban Revolutionaries: The Young Lords of Chicago." Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 96(3): 288-304. Kamin, B. (2006). Saving the City's Historic Graystones. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Karamanski, T. J. (2010). "History, Memory, and Historic Districts in Chicago." The Public Historian 32(4): 33-41. Kasinitz, P. (1988). "The Gentrification of "Boerum Hill": Neighborhood Change and Conflicts over Definitions." Qualitative Sociology 11(3): 163-182. Kass, J. (1987). Class Struggle Divides Uptown: Middle-Class Development at Odds with Housing for Poor. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Katz, M. B. (1989). The Undeserving Poor: From the War of Poverty to the Ware on Welfare. New York, Pantheon Books. Kauko, T. (2009). "Policy Impact and House Price Development at the NeighbourhoodLevel--A Comparison of Four Urban Regeneration Areas Using the Concept of "Artificial" Value Creation." European Planning Studies 17(1). 385 Keating, A. D. (1988). Building Chicago: Suburban Developers & the Creation of a Divided Metropolis. Columbus, Ohio State University Press. Keating, A. D. (2005). Chicagoland: City and Suburbs in the Railroad Age. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Keating, A. D., Ed. (2008). Chicago Neighborhoods and Suburbs: A Historical Guide. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Kennedy, M. and P. Leonard (2001). Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and PolicyLink. Kerch, S. (1986). Crumbling Hotel Reborn as Apartment Building. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Kerch, S. (1988). East Andersonville: Enclave is Built on Small-Town Pride. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Kerch, S. (1990). Yondorf Hall Is Saved from the Wrecking Ball to Become a Bank Again. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: C2FE. Kitchen, P. and A. Williams (2009). "Measuring Neighborhood Social Change in Saskatoon, Canada: A Geographic Analysis." Urban Geography 30(3): 261-288. Kleine, T. (1998). Down on Uptown: Inside the Mysterious Shrinking Neighborhood. Chicago Reader. Chicago: n. pag. Knapp, A. and I. Vojnovic (2013). "Rethinking the Growth Machine: How to Erase a Chinatown from the Urban Core." Urban Geography 34(1): 53-85. Knopp, L. (1997). Gentrification and Gay Neighborhood Formation in New Orleans: A Case Study. Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life. A. Gluckman and B. Reed. New York, Routledge: 45-63. Knott, A. (1982). Developers Sinks Money into Edgewater Area to Give it Balast. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. 386 Knox, P. L. (1991). "The Restless Urban Landscape: Economic and Sociocultural Change and the Transformation of Metropolitan Washington, DC." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81(2): 181-209. Kohtz, D. J. (2011-2012). "Improving Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation." Texas Law Review 90: 1041-1064. Krupka, D. J. (2007). "Are Big Cities More Segregated? Neighbourhood Scale and the Measurement of Segregation." Urban Studies 44(1): 187-197. Kurtz, R. S. (2006). "Historic Preservation: A Statutory Vehicle for Disparite Agendas." The Social Science Journal 43: 67-83. Landmarks Illinois. (2014). "Preservation Easement Program Overview." Retrieved June 9, 2014, from http://www.landmarks.org/easement_overview.htm. Lanyi Charles, S. (2011). Suburban Gentrification: Understanding the Determinants of Single-family Residential Redevelopment, A Case Study of the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, IL, 2000-2010. Cambridge, MA, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. Laska, S. B., J. M. Seaman and D. R. McSeveney (1982). "Inner-City Reinvestment: Neighborhood Characteristics and Spatial Patterns Over Time." Urban Studies 19: 155-165. Laska, S. B. and D. Spain (1979). "Urban Policy and Planning in the Wake of Gentrification: Anticipating Renovators' Demands." Journal of the American Planning Association 45(4): 523-531. Lauria, M. and L. Knopp (1985). "Toward an Analysis of the Role of Gay Communities in the Urban Renaissance." Urban Geography 6(2): 152-169. Lee, A. J., Ed. (1992). Past Meets Future: Saving America's Historic Environments. Washington, DC, The Preservation Press. Lee, B. A. and P. M. Mergenhagen (1984). "Is Revitalization Detectable? : Evidence from Five Nashville Neighborhoods." Urban Affairs Review 19(4): 511-538. Lees, L. (1994). "Gentrification in London and New York: An Atlantic Gap?" Housing Studies 9(2): 199-218. 387 Lees, L. (1994). "Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Positions of Economics or Culture." Progress in Human Geography 18(2): 137-150. Lees, L. (1996). "In the Pursuit of Difference: Representations of Gentrification." Environment and Planning A 28(3): 453-470. Lees, L. (2000). "A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Toward a 'Geography of Gentrification'." Progress in Human Geography 24(3): 389-408. Lees, L. (2003). "Super-Gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City." Urban Studies 40(12): 2487-2509. Lees, L., T. Slater and E. Wyly (2008). Gentrification. New York, Routledge. Levi, D. J. (2005). "Does History Matter? Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Fake Historic Architecture and Historic Preservation." Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 22(2): 148-159. Lewis, R. (2008). Chicago Made: Factory Networks in the Industrial Metropolis. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Ley, D. (1986). "Alternative Explanations for Inner-City Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76(4): 521535. Ley, D. (1989). Modernism, Post-modernism, and the Struggle for Place. The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations. J. A. Agnew, and James S. Duncan. Boston, Unwin Hyman. Ley, D. (1993). "Gentrification in Recession: Social Change in Six Canadian Inner Cities, 1981-1986." Urban Geography 13(3): 230-256. Ley, D. (1996). The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. New York, Oxford University Press. Ley, D., J. Tutchener and G. Cunningham (2002). "Immigration, Polarization, or Gentrification? Accounting for Changing House Prices and Dwelling Values in Gateway Cities." Urban Geography 23(8): 703-727. 388 Lincoln Park Conservation Association (1973). News. Chicago, Lincoln Park Conservation Association Historic Preservation Committee: n. pag. Linn, J. (1967). Restore Lincoln Park Area: Citizens' Groups, Urban Renewal Stem Deterioration. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Lloyd, R. (2002). "Neo-Bohemia: Art and Neighborhood Redevlopment in Chicago." Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5): 517-532. Lloyd, R. (2004). "The Neighborhood in Cultural Production: Material and Symbolic Resources in the New Bohemia." City & Community 3(4): 343-372. Locin, M. (1978). Call Edgewater, Uptown Mental Patient Ghettoes. Chicago Tribube. Chicago. London, B., B. A. Lee and S. G. Lipton (1986). "The Determinants of Gentrification in the United States: A City-Level Analysis." Urban Affairs Review 21(3): 369-387. Lulkin, S. A. (1980). "CHA Overburdens Uptown-Edgewater". Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Lurz, B. (1999). "Interesting Infill." Professional Builder 64(9): 50-56. Lyons, M. (1996). "Gentrification, Socioeconomic Change, and the Geography of Displacement." Journal of Urban Affairs 18(1): 39-62. Mabley, J. (1979). Taxpayers' Loss is Renters' Gain. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. MacLeod, G. (2002). "From Urban Entrepreneurialism to a "Revanchist City"? On the Spatial Injustices of Glasgow's Renaissance." Antipode 34: 602-624. Maly, M. T. (2005). Beyond Segregation: Multiracial and Multiethnic Neighborhoods in the United States. Philadelphia, Temple University Press. Maly, M. T. and M. Leachman (1998). "Rogers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, and Chicago Lawn, Chicago." Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 4(2): 131-160. 389 Marciniak, E. (1984). Reversing Urban Decline: The Winthrop-Kenmore Corridor in the Edgewater and Uptown Communities of Chicago. Washington, D.C., National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs. Marcuse, P. (1985). "To Control Gentrification: Anti-Displacement Zoning and Planning for Stable Districts." New York University Review of Law and Social Change 13: 931-952. Marcuse, P. (1986). Abandonment, Gentrification, and Displacement: The Linkages in New York City. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams. Winchester, MA, Allen & Unwin, Inc. Market Segmentation Specialization Program (2002). Rehabilitation Tax Credit. Department of the Treasury. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Markusen, A. (1981). City Spatial Structure, Women's Household Work, and National Urban Policy. Women and the American City. C. R. Stimpson. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Markwell, K., D. Stevenson and D. Rowe (2004). "Footsteps and Memories: Interpreting an Australian Urban Landscape through Thematic Walking Tours." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 10(5): 457-473. Mason, R. (2005). Economics and Historic Preservation: A Guide and Review of the Literature. Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. McNamee, T. (1987). Shiller & Poor vs. Yuppies in Uptown. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. McRoberts, F. (1994). CHA Siting Rule Raises Uptown Ire. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Metzgar, J. (1999). The Effects of Gentrification on Housing Displacement in the Wicker Park Community. Ph.D., DePaul University. Michael, V. L. (2007). Preserving the Future: Historic Districts in New York City and Chicago in the Late 20th Century. Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago. Miller, B. J. (2008). "The Struggle Over Redevelopment at Cabrini-Green, 1989-2004." Journal of Urban History 34(6): 944-960. 390 Mills, C. A. (1988). "'Life on the Upslope': The Postmodern Landscape of Gentrification." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 6: 169-189. Mitchell, D. (1997). "The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States." Antipode 29(3): 303-335. Moberg, D. (1989). The Fuel of a New Machine. Chicago Reader. Chicago. Moe, R. and C. Wilkie (1997). Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl. New York, Henry Holt and Company. Morris, W. R. (1980). Blacks and the Historical Preservation Movements. Chicago Metro News. Chicago. 14 (47): 9. Murphy, R. (1954). Neighborhood Group Opposes Church Zoning. Chicago Daily Tribune. Chicago. Murtagh, W. J. (1997). Keeping Time: The Theory and History of Preservation in America. New York, Preservation Press/John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Myers, D. and J. Pitkin (2009). "Demographic Forces and Turning Points in the American City, 1950-2040." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 626: 91-111. Myers, L. (1984). Community of Personalities: Lincoln Park/Lake View East Runs Gamut. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. National Commission on Neighborhoods (1979). People, Building Neighborhoods. Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office. 1. National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services (2012). Historic Preservation Tax Incentives. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services. (2014). "Rehabilitation Standards and Guidelines." Retrieved October 30, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm. National Park Service-Technical Preservation Services. (2014). "Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties." Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/taxdocs/about-tax-incentives-2012.pdf. 391 National Park Service (1997). National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. National Park Service (1997). National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC. National Park Service (2013). Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. National Park Service. (2014). "National Historic Landmarks Program." Retrieved June 30, 2014, from http://www.nps.gov/nhl/. National Park Service (n.d.). The National Register of Historic Places. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. National Register of Historic Places (1975, 1983, 1985, 1986). Sheffield Historic District and Boundary Increases. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C., National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places (1985). Sheridan Park Historic District. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C., National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places (1999). Lakewood-Balmoral Historic District. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C., National Park Service. National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2014). "What is Preservation?" Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://www.preservationnation.org/what-is-preservation/. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago Inc. (2014). "About the Historic Greystone." Retrieved June 30, 2014, from http://www.nhschicago.org/site/3c/category/greystone_history. Nelson, K. P. (1988). Gentrification and Distressed Cities: An Assessment of Trends in Intrametropolitan Migration. Madison, WI, The University of Wisconsin Press. Newman, K. and E. Wyly (2005) "Gentrification and Resistance in New York City." Shelterforce Online 142. 392 Newman, K. and E. Wyly (2006). "The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City." Urban Studies 43(1): 23-57. Newsom, M. d. (1971). "Blacks and Historic Preservation." Law and Contemporary Problems 36(3): 423-431. Niedt, C. (2006). "Gentrification and the Grassroots: Popular Support in the Revanchist Suburb." Journal of Urban Affairs 28(2): 99-120. O'Loughlin, J. and D. C. Munski (1979). "Housing Rehabilitation in the Inner City: A Comparison of Two Neighborhoods in New Orleans." Economic Geography 55(1): 52-70. Openshaw, S. (1984). The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Norwich, Geo Books. Openshaw, S. and P. J. Taylor (1972). A Million or so Correlation Coefficients: Tthree Experiments on the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Statistical Applications in the Spatial Sciences. N. Wrigley. London, Pion: 127-144. Osman, S. (2011). The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York. New York, Oxford University Press. Osran, T. and C. Reimann (1989). Sneak Development: Old Town Preservationist Fight the Attack of the Incredible Expanding Buildings. Chicago Reader. Chicago, 18. 41. Pacione, M. (2001). Urban Geography: A Global Perspective. London, Routledge. Pacyga, D. A. (2009). Chicago: A Biography. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Pacyga, D. A. and E. Skerrett (1986). Chicago, City of Neighborhoods: Histories and Tours. Chicago, Loyola University Press. Padilla, F. M. (1987). Puerto Rican Chicago. South Bend, IN, University of Notre Dame Press. Pailon, M. (1994). Housing in Uptown. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. 393 Palen, J. J. and B. London, Eds. (1984). Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. SUNY Series in Urban Public Policy. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press. Palen, J. J. and B. London (1984). Through the Glass Darkly: Gentrification, Revitalization, and the Neighborhood. Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. J. J. Palen and B. London. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press: 256-266. Palmer, A. T. (2001). The Essence of Uptown: Can the Latest Hot Neighborhood Move Up without Leaving Itself Behind? Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Papachristos, A. V., C. M. Smith, M. L. Scherer and M. Fugiero (2011). "More Coffee, Less Crime? The Relationship between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005." City & Community 10(3): 215-240. Pattillo, M. (2005). "Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods." Annual Review of Sociology 31: 305-329. Pattillo, M. (2007). Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Patton, M. A. (2002). Gender and Gentrification: Who Moves In, Who Stays and How They Differ. Ph.D., DePaul University. Perez, G. M. (2002). "The Other 'Real World': Gentrification and the Social Construction of Place in Chicago." Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development 31(1): 37-68. Perkins, H. C., D. C. Thorns and B. M. Newton (2008). "Real Estate Advertising and Intraurban Place Meaning: Real Estate Sales Consultants at Work." Environment and Planning A 40: 2061-2079. Pitt, L. (1998). Area Homes Zoom in Pace and Price. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Podagrosi, A. and I. Vojnovic (2008). "Tearing Down Freedman's Town and African American Displacement in Houston: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of Urban Renewal." Urban Geography 29(4): 371-401. 394 Podagrosi, A., I. Vojnovic and B. Pigozzi (2011). "The Diversity of Gentrification in Houston's Urban Renaissance: From Cleansing the Urban Poor to Supergentrification." Environment and Planning A 43: 1910-1929. Podmore, J. (1998). "(Re)Reading the 'Loft Living' Habitus in Montreal's Inner City." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22(2): 283-302. Preservation Chicago. (2005). "Sheffield Historic District - 2005 Chicago 7." Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://www.preservationchicago.org/chicagoseven/2005/heritage/42. Rast, J. (2001). "Manufacturing Industrial Decline: The Politics of Economic Change in Chicago, 1955-1998." Journal of Urban Affairs 23(2): 175-190. Rast, J. (2005). Curbing Industrial Decline or Thwarting Redevelopment? An Evaluation of Chicago's Clybourn Corridor, Goose Island, and Elston Corridor Planned Manufacturing Districts. Milwaukee, WI, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Economic Development. Ratcliffe, J. E. (1978). A Community in Transition: The Edgewater Community in Chicago. Chicago, Center for Research in Urban Government, Loyola University. Reed, C. (2003). "We're from Oz: Marking Ethnic and Sexual Identity in Chicago." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21: 425-440. Reed, R. E. (1979). Return to the City: How to Restore Old Buildings and Ourselves in America's Historic Urban Neighborhoods. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Company, Inc. Ren, X. (2008). "Forward to the Past: Historical Preservation in Globalizing Shanghai." City & Community 7(1): 23-44. Richardson, C. J. (1987). 14 Properties Named Good Neighbors. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Robertson, I. J. M., Ed. (2012). Heritage, Culture and Identity: Heritage from Below. Heritage, Culture and Identity. Farnham, Surrey, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Rodkin, D. (2011). Lincoln Park Makes Way for Another Megamansion. Chicago Magazine. Chicago: N/A. 395 Rodkin, D. (2012). Another New Mansion Coming to Burling Street. Chicago Magazine. Chicago: N/A. Rogerson, P. A. (2004). Statistical Methods for Geography. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Rose, D. (1984). "Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist Urban Theory." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1: 47-74. Rose, D. (2010). "Local State Policy and 'New-Build Gentrification' in Montréal: the Role of 'Population Factor' in a Fragmented Governance Context." Population, Space and Place 16: 413-428. Rotzoll, B. W. (1986). Uptown Pioneers - Sheridan Park Wants You: Neighborhood on the Way Back Seeks a New Breed of Residents. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Rotzoll, B. W. (1988). "Painted Ladies" Are a Storied Work of Art. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Rotzoll, B. W. (1997). A Brush of Whimsy: Personal Style and a Love of Color Define Chicago's Finest Victorian Architecture. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. Royko, M. (1971). Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago. New York, Signet. Ryberg-Webster, S. (2013). "Preserving Downtown America: Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credits and the Transformation of U.S. Cities." Journal of the American Planning Association 79(4): 266-279. Ryberg-Webster, S. and K. Kinahan (2014). "Historic Preservation and Urban Revitalization in the Twenty-First Century." Journal of Planning Literature 29(2): 119-139. Saliga, P. A., Ed. (1990). The Sky's the Limit: A Century of Chicago Skyscrapers. New York, Rizzoli. Sassen, S. (2004). A Global City. Global Chicago. C. Madigan. Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press. Satler, G. (2006). Two Tales of a City: Rebuilding Chicago's Architectural and Social Landscape, 1986-2005. DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois Press. 396 Schaffer, R. and N. Smith (1986). "The Gentrification of Harlem?" Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76(3): 347-365. Schuler, J. R., R. B. Kent and C. B. Monroe (1992). "Neighborhood Gentrification: A Discriminant Analysis of a Historic District in Cleveland, Ohio." Urban Geography 13(1): 49-67. Schwartz, H. K. (1999). "State and Local Real Property Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation." Preservation Law Reporter 18: 1105-1119. Schwieterman, J. P. and D. M. Caspal (2006). The Politics of Zoning: A History of Zoning in Chicago. Chicago, Lake Claremont Press. Sebastian, P. (1980). Culture, High Property Values in Lincoln. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Seligman, A. I. (2001). ""Apologies to Dracula, Werewolf, Frankenstein": White Homeowners and Blockbusters in Postwar Chicago"." Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 94(1): 70-95. Seligman, A. I. (2005). Block by Block: Neighborhoods and Public Policy on Chicago's West Side. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Sharoff, R. (1996). Famous--Yes; Landmarks--No. Some Choice Buildings Lack Formal Distinction. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Shaw, W. (2005). Heritage and Gentrification: Remembering 'The Good Old Days' in Postcolonial Sydney. Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. R. Atkinson and G. Bridge. New York, Routledge: 57-71. Sheppard, N. J. (1981). Redevelopment Stirs Fears in a Chicago Community. New York Times. New York. Sieber, R. T. (1987). "Urban Gentrification: Ideology and Practice in Middle-class Civic Activity." City & Society 1(1): 52-63. Sinkevitch, A., Ed. (2004). AIA Guide to Chicago. New York, Harcourt, Inc. Slater, T. (2004). "North American Gentrification? Revanchist and Emancipatory Perspectives Explored." Environment and Planning A 36: 1191-1213. 397 Slater, T. (2006). "The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30(4): 737-757. Slater, T., W. Curran and L. Lees (2004). "Gentrification Research: New Directions and Critical Scholarship." Environment and Planning A 36: 1141-1150. Smith, D. P. (2005). 'Studentification': The Gentrification Factory? Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. R. Atkinson and G. Bridge. New York, Routledge. Smith, H. and W. Graves (2005). "Gentrification as Corporate Growth Strategy: The Strange Case of Charlotte, North Carolina and the Bank of America." Journal of Urban Affairs 27(4): 403-418. Smith, N. (1979). "Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital, Not People." APA Journal 45(4): 538-548. Smith, N. (1982). "Gentrification and Uneven Development." Economic Geography 58(2): 139-155. Smith, N. (1986). Gentrification, the Frontier, and the Restructuring of Urban Space. Gentrification of the City. N. Smith and P. Williams. Winchester, MA, Allen & Unwin, Inc. Smith, N. (1987). "Of Yuppies and Housing: Gentrification, Social Restructuring, and the Urban Dream." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 5: 151-172. Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York, Routledge. Smith, N. (1996). "Of Rent Gaps and Radical Idealism: A Reply to Steven Bourassa." Urban Studies 33(7): 1199-1203. Smith, N. (1998). "Comment on David Listokin, Barbara Listokin, and Michael Lahr's "The Contributions of Historic Preservation to Housing and Economic Development": Historic Preservation in a Neoliberal Age." Housing Policy Debate 9(3): 479-485. Smith, N. and M. LeFaivre (1984). A Class Analysis of Gentrification. Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. J. J. Palen and B. London. Albany, State University of New York Press: 43-63. 398 Smith, N. and P. Williams, Eds. (1986). Gentrification of the City. Winchester, MA, Allen & Unwin, Inc. Souffle, A. (2014). Even $1 Million Homes Vulnerable to Teardowns in Hot Neighborhoods". Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Spain, D. and S. B. Laska (1984). Renovators Two Years Later: New Orleans. Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. J. J. Palen and B. London. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press: 103-127. Spirou, C. (2006). Infrastructure Development and the Tourism Industry in Chicago. Chicago's Geographies: Metropolis for the 21st Century. R. P. Greene, M. J. Bouman and D. Grammenos. Washington, D.C., Association of American Geographers: 113-128. Starr, R. (1966). Must Landmarks Go? Horizon. New York, American Heritage Publishing, Inc. VIII: 48-59. Steinley, D. (2006). "K-Means Clustering: A Half-Century Synthesis." British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 59: 1-34. Stipe, R. E., Ed. (2003). A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press. Stipe, R. E. and A. J. Lee, Eds. (1987). The American Mosaic: Preserving a Nation's Heritage. Washington, D.C., US/ICOMOS. Storch, C. (1979). Landmark Home Tax Freeze Blasted. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: B2D. Stuart, G. (2003). Discriminating Risk: The U.S. Mortgage Lending Industry in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. Su, X. (2010). "Urban Conservation in Lijiang, China: Power Structure and Funding Systems." Cities 27: 164-171. Suchar, C. S. (1992). Icons and Images of Gentrification: The Changed Material Culture of an Urban Community. Gentrification and Urban Change. R. Hutchison. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, Inc.: 165-192. 399 Suchar, C. S. (1997). "Grounding Visual Sociology Research in Shooting Scripts." Qualitative Sociology 20(1): 33-55. Suchar, C. S. (2004). Amsterdam and Chicago: Seeing the Macro-Characteristics of Gentrification. Picturing the Social Landscape: Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination. C. Knowles and J. Sweetman. New York, Routledge: 147-165. Suchar, C. S. (2006). Chicago's Central Area. New Chicago: A Social and Cultural Analysis. J. P. Koval, L. Bennett and M. I. J. Bennett. Philadelphia, Temple University Press: 56-76. Sulski, J. (1988). Welcome Mat out for Business: Residential Growth Increases Need for Stores, Service. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Suttles, G. D. (1990). The Man-Made City: The Land-Use Confidence Game in Chicago. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Swanson, S. O. (1982). New Interiors Revitalize Edgewater. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Syphard, A. D., S. I. Stewart, J. Mckeefry, R. B. Hammer, J. S. Fried, S. Holcomb and V. C. Radeloff (2009). "Assessing Housing Growth When Census Boundaries Change." International Journal of Geographic Information Science 23(7): 859876. Teaford, J. C. (1990). The Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban Revitalization in America, 1940-1985. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Thalia (1952). Form Chicago Group to Save Historic Sites. Chicago Daily Tribune. Chicago. Torrens, P. M. and A. Nara (2007). "Modeling Gentrification Dynamics: A Hybrid Approach." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 31: 337-361. Tyler, N., T. J. Ligibel and I. R. Tyler (2009). Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. U.S. Census Bureau (1998). Rank of Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places, Listed Alphabetically by State: 1790-1990. Department of Commerce. 400 U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). "State & County QuickFacts." Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html. Uitermark, J. and J. W. Duyvendak (2008). "Civilising the City: Populism and Revanchist Urbanism in Rotterdam." Urban Studies 45(7): 1485-1503. Uitermark, J., J. W. Duyvendak and R. Kleinhans (2007). "Gentrification as a Governmental Strategy: Social Control and Social Cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam." Environment and Planning A 39: 125-141. United States Conference of Mayors-Special Committee on Historic Preservation (1966). With Heritage So Rich: A Report. New York, Random House. Uptown Chicago Commission. (2014). "Accomplishments." Retrieved June 28, 2014, from http://www.uptownchicagocommission.org. Uptown United. (2012, Summer). "Uptown Entertainment District Community Guidelines." Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.uptownunited.org/sites/default/files/documents/Entertainment%20Dist rict%20Preliminary%20Planning%20Final.pdf. Van Criekingen, M. (2008). "Toward a Geography of Displacement. Moving out of Brussels' Gentrifying Neighbourhoods." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 23: 199-213. Van Criekingen, M. and J.-M. Decroly (2003). "Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification: Neighbourhoood Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal." Urban Studies 40(12): 2451-2468. van Leeuwen, T. A. P. (1988). The Skyward Trend of Thought : The Metaphysics of the American Skyscraper. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press. Venkatesh, S. A. (2002). American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Voice of the People. (2014). "Our History." Retrieved August 8, 2014, from http://vophousing.com/about.html. Vojnovic, I. (2000). "Shaping Metropolitan Toronto: A Study of Linear Infrastructure Subsidies." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27: 197-230. 401 Vojnovic, I. (2003). "Governance in Houston: Growth Theories and Urban Pressures." Journal of Urban Affairs 25: 589-624. Vojnovic, I. (2003). "Laissez-Faire Governance and the Archetype Laissez-Faire City in the USA: Exploring Houston." Geografiska Annaler B 85: 19-37. Vojnovic, I. (2007). "Government and Urban Management in the 20th Century: Policies, Contradictions, and Weaknesses of the New Right." GeoJournal 69: 271-300. Wacquant, L. (2008). "Relocating Gentrification: The Working Class, Science and the State in Recent Urban Research." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(1): 198-205. Wald, M. L. (1987). Managing Gentrification: A Challenge to the Cities. New York Times. New York. Walks, A. and R. Maaranen (2008). The Timing, Patterning, & Forms of Gentrification & Neighbourhood Upgrading in Montreal, Toronto, & Vancouver, 1961 to 2001. Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Toronto, Cities Centre, University of Toronto: 118. Wang, H.-J. and H.-Y. Lee (2008). "How Government-funded Projects Have Revitalized Historic Streetscapes - Two Cases in Taiwan." Cities 25: 197-206. Wangensteen, B. (1996). "Landmarks Group Floats Plan to Resolve Boul Mich Battle." Crain's Chicago Business 19(43): 12. Weber, R., M. Doussard, S. D. Bhatta and D. McGrath (2006). "Tearing the City Down: Understanding Demolition Activity in Gentrifying Neighborhoods." Journal of Urban Affairs 28(1): 19-41. Wiezorek, J. (1984). Homes of the Past Give Birth to Homes of Future. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Williams, B. (1988). Upscaling Downtown: Stalled Gentrification in Washington, D.C. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. Wilson, D. (2006). The Growing Socio-Spatial Polarization in Chicago. Chicago's Geographies: Metropolis for the 21st Century. R. P. Greene, M. J. Bouman and D. Grammenos. Washington, D.C., Association of American Geographers: 189204. 402 Wilson, D., J. Wouters and D. Grammenos (2004). "Successful Protect-Community Discourse: Spatiality and Politics in Chicago's Pilsen Neighborhood." Environment and Planning A 36: 1173-1190. Wolff, J. (1987). Tenants React as Uptown Goes Upscale. Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago: 1. Woodard, B. (2013). "Affordable Housing Demand Unmet on Far North Side: Report." Retrieved August 13, 2014, from http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130430/rogers-park/affordable-housingdemand-unmet-on-far-north-side-report. Woolsey, M. (2007). "The Most Expensive Blocks In The U.S." Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/30/most-expensive-blocksforbeslife-cx_mw_0831blocks.html. Wu, F. (2004). "Transplating Cityscapes: The Use of Imagined Globalization in Housing Commodification in Beijing." Area 36(3): 227-234. Wyly, E. (1999). "Continuity and Change in the Restless Urban Landscape." Economic Geography 75(4): 309-338. Wyly, E. and D. J. Hammel (1998). "Modeling the Context and Contingency of Gentrification." Journal of Urban Affairs 20(3): 303-326. Wyly, E. and D. J. Hammel (1999). "Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resugence of Gentrification." Housing Policy Debate 10(4): 711771. Wyly, E. and D. J. Hammel (2001). "Gentrification, Housing Policy, and the New Context of Urban Redevelopment." Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment 6: 211-276. Wyly, E. and D. J. Hammel (2003). Mapping Neoliberal American Urbanism. Wyly, E. and D. J. Hammel (2004). "Gentrification, Segregation, and Discrimination in the American Urban System." Environment and Planning A 36: 1215-1241. Yeates, M. H. (1965). "Some Factors Affecting the Spatial Distribution of Chicago Land Values, 1910-1960." Economic Geography 41(1): 57-70. 403 Younger, L. (1972). Old Town Residents Balk at Proposal for High Rise. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Zhang, Y. (2008). The Fragmented City: Politics of Urban Preservation in Beijing, Paris, and Chicago. Ph.D., Princeton University. Zhang, Y. (2008). "Steering Towards Growth: Symbolic Urban Preservation in Beijing, 1990-2005." Town Planning Review 79(2-3): 187-208. Zhang, Y. (2011). "Boundaries of Power: Politics of Urban Preservation in Two Chicago Neighborhoods." Urban Affairs Review 47(5): 511-540. Zhang, Y. (2013). The Fragmented Politics of Urban Preservation: Beijing, Chicago, and Paris. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press. Zielenbach, S. (2000). The Art of Revitalization: Improving Conditions in Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. New York, Garland Publishing, Inc. Ziemba, S. (1974). Old Town wins high-rise battle. Chicago Tribune. Chicago. Ziemba, S. (1989). Historic Building on Way Back. Chicago Tribune. Chicago: A1. Zukin, S. (1982). Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Zukin, S. (1987). "Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core." Annual Review of Sociology 13: 129-147. Zukin, S. (1998). "Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardization in Spaces of Consumption." Urban Studies 35(5-6): 825-839. 404