Is Elmwood Park worth moving to? (Chicago, Naperville: short sales, rental, house)

[oakparkdude]

I actually think the biggest problem of places like EP are due to large national and societal trends over the past few decades. Fifty years, ago, blue collar, non-college educated Americans could reasonably expect to attain a middle class lifestyle. Maybe they couldn't afford the big house in neighboring River Forest, but they could get a reasonable bungalow in a safe neighborhood surrounded by like-minded, employed neighbors.

Sadly, the days of a relatively flat income distribution are long gone. Those at the top are doing better than ever while the middle and bottom have stagnated or even dropped. Good paying jobs that don't require a college degree are few and far between. Thus, the demographic cohort of potential buyers for places like EP and Berwyn, etc is shrinking.

I don't really know of an easy solution to fix this problem.

[Humboldt1]

Chet,

I believe Elmwood Park is centrally located and the metra ride is always 25 mins not just the express runs. Also, it is much closer to downtown if you need to drive than say Arlington Heights.

OakParkDude,

You make valid points about the conditions of our non-educated working class and its decline. Elmwood Park will continue to be working class.

[allen2323]

Originally Posted by GooberGuy

I would not live there.

My personal take on elmwood park is it's nothing special. But, elmwood park has never been anything special in my opinion. Lower middle class median household income around 50k, smaller chicago style bungalows, small chicago lots. What's to love? On that same token there is nothing in particular to hate and if you like the location it is a fine neighborhood. If you liked elmwood park a few years ago when the average home price for a 1500 sqft. basic chicago style bungalow was selling for 350k. I don't see any reason why that same buyer wouldn't absolutely love moving to elmwood park now with nice bungalows selling for 150k-200k. It seems some people only like an area when they are severely over paying. Kind of a boom and bust mentality going on.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by allen2323

Well homewood and olympia fields are both much higher income areas than elmwood park.

Not quite. We shall see when the new census numbers come out. Elmwood Park and Homewood were not too far apart in income as of 2000. I except that gap has shrunk greatly in the last ten years.

Elmwood Park

"The median income for a household in the village was $47,315, and the median income for a family was $58,358."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmwood_Park,_Illinois

Homewood

"The median income for a household in the village was $57,213, and the median income for a family was $70,941."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homewood,_Illinois

Olympia Fields was far beyond both.

"The median income for a household in the village was $94,827, and the median income for a family was $100,121."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Fields,_Illinois

[chirack]

Originally Posted by allen2323

Beverly is within 15 miles south of downtown. About the same distance from downtown as evanston. It's the most suburban like neighborhood located within chicago. Traffic south of downtown is not even comparable to the heavy congestion west. Even during rush hour, once you make it south of downtown traffic begins to loosen up. Not the dead stop traffic that you experience west of downtown . I am sure most folks who live in beverly mostly drive to downtown as it is so close and such a straight shot. It wouldn't save any time taking the red line downtown.

Redline at 95th lacks parking. If I lived over that way and worked downtown I would take Metra. Unlike evanston Dan Ryan lacks express service. Traffic durring non rush is a breeze to downtown but during rush it is a major tie up every which way you go. Dan Ryan probably clears fastest of any expressway but I would not drive downtown unless I had to.

IMHO elmwood park is just going to be fine. Not every area needs good schools and houses the size of a McMansion to hold value. It is close to Chicago and reasonably safe.

[ajolotl]

This is the debate that never ends.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

I actually think the biggest problem of places like EP are due to large national and societal trends over the past few decades. Fifty years, ago, blue collar, non-college educated Americans could reasonably expect to attain a middle class lifestyle. Maybe they couldn't afford the big house in neighboring River Forest, but they could get a reasonable bungalow in a safe neighborhood surrounded by like-minded, employed neighbors.

Sadly, the days of a relatively flat income distribution are long gone. Those at the top are doing better than ever while the middle and bottom have stagnated or even dropped. Good paying jobs that don't require a college degree are few and far between. Thus, the demographic cohort of potential buyers for places like EP and Berwyn, etc is shrinking.

I don't really know of an easy solution to fix this problem.

Wow, this one really veered off course, LOL! To go way back to this point, the easy (well, not easy, but logical) fix at the community level is to try to appeal to diverse demographics, particularly with regard to economic diversity. A good analogy would be a stock portfolio -- you keep diversity to keep balance, which will keep your rate of return moving up in the long run. No community should ever, ever say "we're blue collar, we've always been blue collar, and we'll always be blue collar." Communities should always do what they can to attract diversity so they don't get pigeonholed into one category, which is risky to long term viability.

[svillechris]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Wow, this one really veered off course, LOL! To go way back to this point, the easy (well, not easy, but logical) fix at the community level is to try to appeal to diverse demographics, particularly with regard to economic diversity. A good analogy would be a stock portfolio -- you keep diversity to keep balance, which will keep your rate of return moving up in the long run. No community should ever, ever say "we're blue collar, we've always been blue collar, and we'll always be blue collar." Communities should always do what they can to attract diversity so they don't get pigeonholed into one category, which is risky to long term viability.

Sorry, but your analogy between a diversified stock portfolio and a diverse town is not accurate. Quick investing lesson - just because your portfolio is diversified does not mean that you will have a higher ROR over time. A portfolio that would yield the highest RORs over time are those that have stocks with strong earnings and anticipated earnings growth, little debt/baggage/pending litigation, and good management.

The same applies to a town. What will really make a town flourish and experience that same high ROR over time (by way of real estate values) is similar to what creates a strong stock. Strong earnings (in the literal sense of the word - families earning higher incomes), little baggage (crime, drugs, broken homes), and good management (good parenting and parental involvment in the lives of the children, especially in school).

These are the things that makes a town go from good to great. Not the color of one's skin or their ethnicity. Diversity by itself does not at all equal a stronger, more successful, growing town. The types of people that make up that town and the decisions that they make is what matters.

[allen2323]

Originally Posted by svillechris

Sorry, but your analogy between a diversified stock portfolio and a diverse town is not accurate. Quick investing lesson - just because your portfolio is diversified does not mean that you will have a higher ROR over time. A portfolio that would yield the highest RORs over time are those that have stocks with strong earnings and anticipated earnings growth, little debt/baggage/pending litigation, and good management.

The same applies to a town. What will really make a town flourish and experience that same high ROR over time (by way of real estate values) is similar to what creates a strong stock. Strong earnings (in the literal sense of the word - families earning higher incomes), little baggage (crime, drugs, broken homes), and good management (good parenting and parental involvment in the lives of the children, especially in school).

These are the things that makes a town go from good to great. Not the color of one's skin or their ethnicity. Diversity by itself does not at all equal a stronger, more successful, growing town. The types of people that make up that town and the decisions that they make is what matters.

I know that we don't agree much. But I totally agree with you on this one. I would only add that an area attracting higher income residents is a combination of a number of things, and attracting higher income residents is really the end result of that measure. Folks can beat around the bush as much as they want with the other individual points of comparisons. Housing stock, area crime, public transportation, acceptance of diversity, public schools, shopping, neighborhood upkeep, local amenities, etc. What income bracket does an area fall into is the best baseline end comparison. Simply put, individuals and families making the higher incomes always live in the better overall areas. Individuals and families with the lower incomes will always be deligated to the less desirable overall areas. That's just how our capitalistic society works. Black, white, or brown.

[oakparkdude]

The problem is not every town can suceed in becoming the location of choice for wealthy, college-educated families with few social pathologies. There simply aren't enough rich people to go around.