Last week, a building collapsed on the west side of Chicago. The article questioned whether the building could be salvaged, and said that building insLast week, a building collapsed on the west side of Chicago. The article questioned whether the building could be salvaged, and said that building inspectors were on the scene. A day later, the Tribune reported that "Building Inspectors" had stabilized the structure. Who are these mysterious building inspectors who arrive after disasters, and stabilize buildings (hint: they don't--they certify stability, they don't create it)?
Bartram provides a fascinating window into who building inspectors are in Chicago, what they do, and how their work impacts neighborhoods. The role of building inspectors is far more important than most people realize, and they exercise far more subjective judgment than most people would expect. Over the last 43 years, I have spent a lot of time in building court (almost always representing tenants who faced displacement as a result of the actions (or inactions) of inspectors. So I eagerly anticipated reading this behind the scenes book. I was not disappointed--although (as discussed below), I do have questions.
Bartram begins the book by discussing the various structural advantages and disadvantages experienced both by individuals and entire neighborhoods in Chicago. These largely track racial and economic data. Bartram terms these "stacked decks"--as in "the deck is stacked against you," but also allegorically referring to back decks which are so popular in traditional Chicago six-flats.
The other background information which Bartram hints at, but doesn't discuss in any detail, is the fact that the Chicago Building Code is one of the most strict codes in the country. Virtually every building in the entire city has multiple code violations. These can range from violations which appear to be purely cosmetic issues (e.g., cracks in paint) to serious structural issues (e.g., rear decks which are in danger of collapse).
These two background frames provide the analytical structure against which Bartram focuses his descriptions of what building inspectors do on a day to day basis. Bartram's thesis is that building inspectors do what they can (within the limits of their knowledge, their jobs, and external impediments) to redress some of these structural inequities. Inspectors tend not to write up every violation in buildings where the stacked deck disfavors the owner, but will write far more violations in buildings where the stacked deck gives the owner unearned advantages.
Much of the book is devoted to describing examples at this sort of discretion exercised by inspectors. The final section of the book is devoted to discussing the ways that the inspectors' attempts to counter stacked decks often are futile, and sometimes backfire. This section is, I thought, the most interesting part of the book.
I found this book very readable, fascinating, and entirely believable given the work I have done over the last 40+ years which has periodically intersected with the work building inspectors do. That said, I was frustrated by Bartram's failure to address two issues which, in my experience, often counter her narrative of "stabs at justice."
First, she entirely ignores the role of political clout. As she notes, these are really attractive jobs, usually filled by retired members of the building trades. However, historically, like so many jobs in Chicago, hiring has not been made on merit, but on political contact. Inspectors, at least in the past, were almost always sponsored by Aldermen or Committeemen for those jobs. This inevitably colored the way they did their jobs. If an alderman thought a building in their ward was an eyesore, then building inspectors would come down hard on the building. If the building owner was a supporter of the local alderman, then few if any code violations would be written. Maybe this phenomena has completely disappeared in recent years, but the fact that Bartram completely ignores politics in his work is troubling.
Second, is the role building inspectors have played in the gentrification of neighborhoods. This issue is touched on by Bartram, but a much more in depth analysis is needed. In my experience working in rapidly gentrifying Uptown over the last 40+ years, when a building is occupied by poor people on a black where other buildings have been converted to condos or high-end rentals, the building with poorer occupants will be written up for every single code violation the inspectors can find, regardless of whether the owner is struggling, or a multi-building owner making lots of money from rents. This can be a force for good, or bad, for the neighborhood. On one hand, if the intent is to force the building owner to sell (or convert), then it contributes to the destruction of the neighborhood by forcing displacement. On the other hand, such intense code enforcement can be used by the City to induce an owner to sell the building to a not-for-profit for the purpose of maintaining it as a low cost rental building. Whether this is a good or bad use of the building code is worth discussing. But Bartram virtually ignores the question.
One final point. Many of the violations found by building inspectors do not end up in court. Rather, they are sent to administrative enforcement--where it appears that the purpose is to generate fines, rather than to ensure buildings are repaired. Bartram completely ignores this parallel universe of code enforcement as cash generator for the city.
All in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a behind the scenes look at how the integrity of Chicago's housing stock is ensured by the City. I also look forward to another book on this subject which delves into the questions Bartram leaves unexamined....more
Very well written history of the gentrification of Lincoln Park, ranging from the early post-WWII efforts by Bohemian artists, through the pitched batVery well written history of the gentrification of Lincoln Park, ranging from the early post-WWII efforts by Bohemian artists, through the pitched battles between the Poor People's Campaign (spearheaded by the Young Lords Organization, lead by Cha Cha Jimenez), the do gooder rehabers (who wanted to keep Lincoln Park "diverse," but also wanted to drive out poor people), and well financed developers (who wanted to replace existing low density housing with high rises for the wealthy). For a relatively short (166 pages) history of a really complex series of events, Daniel Kay Hertz does a fine job of describing events at a level of detail which allows the reader to understand the sequence of events, without burying the narrative in details.
My only disagreement with Hertz (and the reason I didn't award fie stars), is that he gives too much credit to "market forces" and not enough to raw political power. He carefully draws a distinction between public redevelopment (classic urban renewal) and private actions, noting that one of the weaknesses of the resistance was underestimating the power of the private market forces. However, his own narrative establishes that those "private" market forces depended in large part on government activity: in the early days, the massive demolition of poor people's housing on the borders of Lincoln Park (Cabrini Green and Sandberg Village), followed by code enforcement by the City, designation of the area as a "conservation area." Even without any direct government acquisition or demolition of property in Lincoln Park, each of these actions assured private landowners (and speculators) comfort that the government was going to support them, and was not going to disinvest in Lincoln Park as it did (for example) in Englewood.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in Chicago history, and particularly for anyone fighting the forces of gentrification....more
Robert Jordan spent many decades covering Chicago for WGN television, mostly as the nightly news anchor. That experience provides Jordan with a uniqueRobert Jordan spent many decades covering Chicago for WGN television, mostly as the nightly news anchor. That experience provides Jordan with a unique vantage point to analyze the way television specifically, and news operations generally, cover the news. Jordan's focus on the coverage of murders in Chicago is particularly timely, as politicians from the president to Chicago's mayor have pointed to Chicago's murder rate as proof that the city is a dangerous, violent, out of control place. That view is largely driven by news coverage, as in fact the city's murder rate is far lower than it has been at other times in history, and is no where near the highest rate in the US.
Parts of Jordan's book live up to this promise. he examines several murders--some that were high profile and garnered wall to wall coverage, and others no one ever heard about. He examines the reasons some were covered and others not: location (leafy suburbs get covered more than inner city neighborhoods), race, economic status, and even time of day play a role.
The role race plays in overage decisions is, I think, the most interesting theme running throughout this book. Jordan surveyed hundreds of local news editors, assignment editors, and reporters, and most flatly denied that race played any role in their decision-making. But Jordan doesn't believe them, and constantly accepts as a given that murders where the victim is Black are less likely to be covered, and then will be covered only if the victim was 'exceptional"--honor student, about to go to college, home on leave from the army, etc. I was frustrated that Jordan never took the next obvious step after doing his survey--quantifying what actually got covered by each of the media outlets.
Jordan also provides a detailed review of all of the steps that go into deciding what ends up on the air during any particular news show: assignment editors decide what stories to assign to reporters; reporters and camera crews decide if the assignment can actually be turned into a story, and then producers decide which completed stories will actually make it on air, how much time the story will be given, and in what order the stories will be shown.
While all of this is fascinating, I felt that the book ultimately contained too much "padding." Jordan has a tendency to wander off with interesting "factoids" or pieces of "insider" information which are either irrelevant to his point, or are so well known as not to be particularly interesting. For example, he mentions a least half a dozen times how the availability of multiple platforms is changing television news, and the influence of the instant feedback on websites from Google analytics and other tools influences the news. While these simple facts are repeated several times, Jordan never really digs deeper. He fails to examine HOW this instant feedback changes the way murders (or anything else) is covered.
In the end, I found this book interesting, but wish it had more depth....which ironically, is exactly what Jordan wishes for television news....more
Jesus ("Gato") Cardenas is an old gang-banger, now turned down and out hustler who is barely making it. He was kicke"I'm dead. I'm dead," yells Gato.
Jesus ("Gato") Cardenas is an old gang-banger, now turned down and out hustler who is barely making it. He was kicked out of his rooming house when it gentrified, and is now living in the park.
George is an old leftie--went to Cuba as a young man, worked as a community organizer, joined the Harold Washington campaign for mayor, then got a city job as a reward. But when Harold died, he went "straight" and became a database manager for a medical record company. George and Alexia have been married for over 30 years, and have lived in the same Wicker Park building for just as long.
Of course, Gato is not dead. Gato's social security check has been cut off because his payee died. George straightens that mess out, and tries to help Gato stabilize his life. But Gato's life is not so easy to straighten out. He is unclear of his birth date, claims to have arrived from Cuba in the 60's, and fought in Vietnam. But he has no identification, and neither immigration nor the army have any record of him. Without id, Gato can not get food stamps, or subsidized housing. His check never stretches to the end of the month--a problem compounded by his alcoholism.
George becomes increasingly frustrated, as Gato's life cycles from crisis to a modicum of stability, and back again. The reader is compelled to keep turning the pages to find out if Gato will finally get it together, or will George lose patience and leave Gato to crash and burn.
In the end, the book is a lesson in Christianity--both in the literal and broader moral sense. George is religious, and some people in the book are saved through a local Pentecostal church. But the broader lesson is that to give your life meaning, you need to help others. A good lesson, in a great book....more
Very nice history of the Illinois Black Panther Party, from its origins as a student movement, to the assassination of Fred Hampton. The authors sets Very nice history of the Illinois Black Panther Party, from its origins as a student movement, to the assassination of Fred Hampton. The authors sets this history in the context of racism in Chicago, and the rise of the Democratic machine, which set the stage for violent self-defense in the black community.
Also does a really nice job of pulling in the strands of the rainbow coalition: Young Lords, Young Patriot Organization, Rising Up angry, and several others.
Finally, makes a brief analysis of what happened since, the creation of the Harold Washington coalition to elect him Mayor is depicted as a direct descendant of Hampton's Rainbow Coalition, and also Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama (and to a lesser extent, David Axelrod), all,of which expropriated the rhetoric and strategy, but not for revolutionary ends, but instead for personal aggrandizement. ...more
This is the dual story of the conception, construction, and execution of the Chicago Columbia Exposition (I.e., World's Fair), and the mass murderer wThis is the dual story of the conception, construction, and execution of the Chicago Columbia Exposition (I.e., World's Fair), and the mass murderer who worked in Chicago during the Fair.
There were sections which were absolutely fascinating: loved the description of how early Chicago "skyscrapers" were built, and the background on planning the World's Fair. But in the end, there was just too much "fake tension."
By that I mean that Larson continually dropped hints and built suspension about both of these story lines. However, the reader already knows how both turn out. The Fair is a smashing success, and the murderer is Holmes. How do we know this? Well, the Fair is a well known historical fact, and Holmes is identified as the murderer in the first few pages. So, at least to me, all Larson's attempts to build suspense (will the Fair open on time; will anyone show up; will the murderer get away with it) felt forced.
Curiously, the Fair story was actually much more interesting. The details on how one transforms a swamp into a world class exposition were actually fascinating, as was the detail provided on the uses of manpower in the effort.
Finally, I probably would have enjoyed this more but for all the hype. It is a good book. But not the greatest thing ever written....more
Non-fiction account of a long forgotten episode in Chicago History. In 1947, Black migration to Chicago from the south was huge--but strict housing seNon-fiction account of a long forgotten episode in Chicago History. In 1947, Black migration to Chicago from the south was huge--but strict housing segregation meant that newly arriving Blacks were stuffed into tiny, converted spaces, often without running water, at grossly inflated prices.
Mr. Hickman--who worked at US Steel--moved his family into the attic of one such building. However, a tenant activist began demanding repairs, so the landlord burned down the building, killing four of the Hickman children. A year later, Hickman finds himself on trial for the murder of his landlord, represented by Leon Despres, later an icon of Chicago's civil rights and progressive politics--but then a young labor lawyer. Hickman's case also became the focus of a national defense and support committee, organized by the Trotskyite wing of the US Socialist movement.
The author does a great job weaving together the various elements of this story: Black migration, racial discrimination in housing, the criminal investigation of the landlord, the prosecution of Hickman, and how the technical legal defense work was intimately tied to the political organizing.
Unfortunately, this story still resonates today. As the author notes in an epilogue, children continue to die in fires burning overcrowded, dilapidated buildings; and some people are still organizing in support of the victims of unjust prosecutions. In Uptown, one of the first cases I worked on in the early 80's involved a series of fires, several of which resulted in the deaths of tenants, where the owner of deteriorated buildings, packed full of poor people, escaped all criminal liability.
Highly recommended for lawyers and activists involved with the criminal justice system....more
First, a disclaimer: I have lived in Uptown for over 30 years, know Roger well, and know virtually everyone Roger interviewed.
The story Roger tells isFirst, a disclaimer: I have lived in Uptown for over 30 years, know Roger well, and know virtually everyone Roger interviewed.
The story Roger tells is an important one: how white southerner a came north, founded a community in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago, and battled against prejudice, deindustrialization, police harassment, and gentrification. So, I really wanted to like this book--but I didn't.
On the most basic level, this book desperately needed an editor. This was Roger's dissertation, so it wasn't written for the general public, and didn't go through the normal publishing house process. Nonetheless, the huge number of dropped words, incomplete sentences, and repetition of the same anecdote strongly suggests that someone needed to give this a good read through with a red pencil before the galleys were set.
But I could have ignored all that.,the real problem is that he never really came to grips with this neighborhood, and the people he was writing about. Roger suffered from the sociologists disease--projecting your world view on the people and social structures you are observing, rather than truly trying to understand the world from their perspective.
The people of Uptown did not face discrimination because they were culturally backward. They were not culturally backward; they were poor. they were hard workers--first in the mines, then in steel mills and factories. while it lasted, these were good jobs, paying a decent wage. but the mines mechanized, and the factories moved out of the cities. Southern white immigrants who ended up in Uptown, like millions of other immigrants, in Uptown, and across America, were victims of deindustrialization coupled with the rising political influence of finance and the decline of organized labor. This is why they were displaced from the south. This is why they were attacked in Uptown. In both cases, they were sitting on valuable land, and weren't needed as labor.
The people of Uptown did not develop a culture of organized resistance because of Clement Stone funding the Chicago Southern Center and adopting Stone's "Positive Mental Attitude" program. They did not develop a culture of resistance because the SDS came to the neighborhood. Their capacity for resistance was already there. They formed the backbone of organized labor in the country through the UMW in the coal mines. They built on this strong long history of organizing, coupled it with deep ties to family and friends, and made a stand in Uptown for life with dignity.
This story is buried in the interviews Roger did for this book. It comes through when he lets people speak for themselves. But this truth is buried under Roger's sociological overlay. Maybe this is what you need to do to get a PhD, but the true story of the battle for Uptown remains untold....more
Loading...
