(Statistics provided by Chicago Rehab Network, 1990-2000 Census.)
In the past fifteen years, the Lake View area has experienced more demographic changes that any of Chicago’s other 77 areas surveyed by the US Census. While Lake View is second only to the Austin neighborhood in terms of total population, (117 ,000 to 94,000,) no other area comes close to Lake View in terms of the total number of housing units it has.
According to the 2000 Census, Lake View had nearly 60,000 housing units, with the dense Near North Side coming in second, at 51,000. While Lake View had 3.2% of the City’s population, it had 5.2% of the City’s total housing stock. In other words, Lake View had 62% more housing units than its population would ordinarily indicate. Average household size in Lake View is 1.5 persons, not counting pets.
Lake View residents were predominantly renters, with only one out of three residents owning their own home. Since one-half of all units in the area were in buildings with 10 or more units, the challenge for Lake View residents is that the chance to own is hampered by the soaring cost of Lake View owner units.
While incomes in the area were 140% of the City average ($54,000 vs. $38,625,) owner units had soared to 300% of the City average. In other words, Lake View residents are now faced with home prices that are more than two times their incomes! During the 1990’s, Lake View rents rose 24%, while local incomes increased 26%. So clearly, residents can afford to rent, but not to buy. So Lake View home ownership remains at only one-half the City’s average.
All of these economic improvements to the area have also brought social changes to the community. The number of low income residents dropped by 1%; the number of African-Americans and Hispanics dropped by 25% and 36% respectively. On the other hand, Lake View had the largest increase in white population of any community area. Lake View is also one of the youngest communities in the City.
POLICY ISSUES
1. Trying to get condo conversions that have elements of targeting in them for first-time buyers, seniors, and special populations would be most admirable. Whether City, State and federal funds would help in that goal has yet to be explored. It is possible that any capital gain that the new owners experience could be shared with the entities that provided the opportunity capital, thereby ensuring an ongoing supply of affordable units.
2. Getting developers who convert renal buildings to condo units to take a subordinate “B” position in the new coop building, which would keep the purchase price of the new units lower than market rates. The developer could then eetain an equity piece in the building.
3. The planning and zoning of remaining land tracts, and tear downs, should always raise the question of income mixing goals. Institutional and non-profit sponsorship of mixed income housing should be encouraged, so that the economic diversity in the area is preserved.
4. The City of Chicago has been preoccupied with the thorny issues of preserving very low income subsidized housing, and in the improvement of the Chicago Housing Authority. While these are important goals in any city, the preservation of affordable housing in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods is equally important. It is not that anyone wants to tell a private developer what to build, it is to the City’s interest to devote a large share of its public subsidy dollars to encouraging developers to find creative, and economically sound, ways to produce units for both the affluent and the middle-class.
PJFugiel, March 1, 20006