The proposition on the floor is so well intended and seems so incontrovertible that its backers can’t imagine it will engender much debate. It says that the city should “give priority to existing residents [of Kenwood-Oakland] in all phases of community development.”
That’s an understatement. Clark and his two colleagues from Planning, Martin Goldsmith and Stephanie Barnes, are attempting yet another rendition of neighborhoodbased planning, but sometimes even just agreeing on goals can seem next to impossible. They’ve been at the Kenwood-Oakland planning project since the summer, but it’s still in the early stages; by next spring, they hope to emerge with an actual blueprint designed by the locals–a wish list that will shape future development in the south lakefront communities of Kenwood and Oakland.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
The goals, even when hotly disputed, can tend to seem innocuous to outsiders. And sometimes the means to achieve them are nonexistent. In a similar process last year, residents of the Gap, an up-and-coming area just south of the Loop, agreed to the goal of a vibrant and economically diverse community; then they plotted how to accomplish it. Working with Clark and Maria Choca, one of the Planning Department’s assistant commissioners, they suggested rerouting streets and landscaping lots, and even designed town houses to be built on vacant land. Some changes were effected immediately, like turning the local public school into a magnet school; the more ambitious proposals, the ones requiring massive public or private funding, were not.
It sounds good, but it’s not easy. In the case of Kenwood-Oakland, the problems start with definitions. There is no such community as Kenwood-Oakland. Kenwood and Oakland are two neighboring communities that seem worlds apart. Oakland, which runs roughly from 39th on the north to 43rd on the south, with western and eastern boundaries at Cottage Grove and the lake, is an economically depressed community of subsidized high rises for low-income people and dilapidated smaller buildings. About 45 percent of its land is vacant; according to the 1980 census, it is the poorest community in Chicago.
Robert Lucas has been the executive director of the Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization (KOCO) since 1975. This organization, like the city, is also suspect for lumping the two communities together. Still, many observers regard Lucas as the area’s unofficial spokesman–and this riles Jones and her allies no end. “Lucas doesn’t represent Kenwood or Oakland,” says Mary Bordelon, a Kenwood resident. “He doesn’t live here, and a lot of the people he drags into meetings, saying they’re part of his group, don’t live here either. I don’t know why [the Planning Department] gives him a vote in this process at all.”
“What they say just isn’t true, and I don’t know why they keep saying it,” counters Lucas. “Maybe they’re jealous of KOCO; maybe they’re jealous of me. Fact is, the [urban-renewal designation] was discussed at many public hearings and is supported by most residents of the community. And secondly, I don’t advocate tearing down property. About 45 percent of Kenwood-Oakland is vacant land. We don’t need to tear down; we need to build. Every building north of 46th Street that can be saved, should be saved. We would like to see the home owners have grants and low-interest loans to fix their property. We say, rehab the multi-family buildings for the market. Do in-fill housing on vacant land, but build the housing so it fits in with the surrounding area.
“The Kramer plan stirred fears of displacement,” says one city planner who asked for anonymity. “People said this was a plan to replace poor blacks with wealthier whites. I can’t blame them for thinking like that. The city has broken a lot of promises in the past.”
