Suburbia, the next slum? (Chicago, Aurora: real estate, for rent, crime rates)

[lakecountylifer]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

It may not be a choice in the future. The immigrants crowded into the tenements of New York's lower east side 100 years ago used to put pastoral farm landscapes on the wall because they yearned for more space, but they felt trapped and didn't have the means to get their own land in many cases.

It could. But a lot depends on the future unknown. We don't know if we'll be free from dependency on oil in 30 years and perhaps we are all driving cheap electric cars making Yorkville and corn field atmosphere attractive----This is all dependent on the availability of low cost energy , innovation and global political stability.

[hsw]

Wouldn't be surprised if cities like NYC and Chicago over next 3-5 yrs increasingly revert to their '70s slum-state in the likely deep recession underway....

With decreased tax revenues (b/c of losses in financial industry), NYC/Chic will try to increase taxes on the profitable cos./firms and affluent taxpayers based in the city; violent street crime will likely increase due to poor economy and cutbacks in police force; filth of city streets in "upscale" office/residential areas will increase....

Suspect many firms will move offices to more tax-favorable suburban office parks closer to where many senior executives w/families prefer to live anyway...

The few rather affluent single yuppies will prob continue to choose to live in Manhattan and drive 35mis to hedge fund offices in Greenwich....or live in City of SF and drive 40-60mis to SiliconValley's various tech and VC/private equity offices....a small, elite group indeed....most allegedly yuppie taxpayers may not be able to afford a decent std of living in the city...and others migrate in life from being single and largely interested in nightlife and restaurants to having to raise kids and being more focused on physical safety, schools, physical space and privacy, etc....

[lakecountylifer]

Originally Posted by hsw

Wouldn't be surprised if cities like NYC and Chicago over next 3-5 yrs increasingly revert to their '70s slum-state in the likely deep recession underway....

With decreased tax revenues (b/c of losses in financial industry), NYC/Chic will try to increase taxes on the profitable cos./firms and affluent taxpayers based in the city; violent street crime will likely increase due to poor economy and cutbacks in police force; filth of city streets in "upscale" office/residential areas will increase....

Suspect many firms will move offices to more tax-favorable suburban office parks closer to where many senior executives w/families prefer to live anyway...

The few rather affluent single yuppies will prob continue to choose to live in Manhattan and drive 35mis to hedge fund offices in Greenwich....or live in City of SF and drive 40-60mis to SiliconValley's various tech and VC/private equity offices....a small, elite group indeed....most allegedly yuppie taxpayers may not be able to afford a decent std of living in the city...and others migrate in life from being single and largely interested in nightlife and restaurants to having to raise kids and being more focused on physical safety, schools, physical space and privacy, etc....

You know that at least in Chicago government has become a bigger and bigger part of individuals lives. Da Mayor wants to limit your food choices even! . Part of the problem with Chicago is that with all the required funds needed for projects, services, and other earmarks potentially could bankrupt the city in a severe recession. If people can not afford cars, how will da mayor pay his cronies under contract for booting fees?

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by hsw

Wouldn't be surprised if cities like NYC and Chicago over next 3-5 yrs increasingly revert to their '70s slum-state in the likely deep recession underway....

With decreased tax revenues (b/c of losses in financial industry), NYC/Chic will try to increase taxes on the profitable cos./firms and affluent taxpayers based in the city; violent street crime will likely increase due to poor economy and cutbacks in police force; filth of city streets in "upscale" office/residential areas will increase....

Suspect many firms will move offices to more tax-favorable suburban office parks closer to where many senior executives w/families prefer to live anyway...

The few rather affluent single yuppies will prob continue to choose to live in Manhattan and drive 35mis to hedge fund offices in Greenwich....or live in City of SF and drive 40-60mis to SiliconValley's various tech and VC/private equity offices....a small, elite group indeed....most allegedly yuppie taxpayers may not be able to afford a decent std of living in the city...and others migrate in life from being single and largely interested in nightlife and restaurants to having to raise kids and being more focused on physical safety, schools, physical space and privacy, etc....

That's just so 20th Century!

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by hsw

Wouldn't be surprised if cities like NYC and Chicago over next 3-5 yrs increasingly revert to their '70s slum-state in the likely deep recession underway....

With decreased tax revenues (b/c of losses in financial industry), NYC/Chic will try to increase taxes on the profitable cos./firms and affluent taxpayers based in the city; violent street crime will likely increase due to poor economy and cutbacks in police force; filth of city streets in "upscale" office/residential areas will increase....

Suspect many firms will move offices to more tax-favorable suburban office parks closer to where many senior executives w/families prefer to live anyway...

The few rather affluent single yuppies will prob continue to choose to live in Manhattan and drive 35mis to hedge fund offices in Greenwich....or live in City of SF and drive 40-60mis to SiliconValley's various tech and VC/private equity offices....a small, elite group indeed....most allegedly yuppie taxpayers may not be able to afford a decent std of living in the city...and others migrate in life from being single and largely interested in nightlife and restaurants to having to raise kids and being more focused on physical safety, schools, physical space and privacy, etc....

What is up with your obsession over hedge funds? You know there's more to the economy than hedge funds right? Besides, the most prominent Chicago area hedge fund is located in the Loop.

[almost3am]

I'm new to the board, but I have been reading a lot about Chicago suburbs here (great info and opinions, btw), as I will likely be making a move into Illinois next year. Anyway, about the topic at hand, I just read the article in The Atlantic and wanted to give my take on it. What I believe Leinberger is saying is that fringe suburbs will be the casulaties, which eliminates most of Chicagoland (is that the appropriate term?) from the equation. My take was that suburbs such as Naperville, Arlington Heights, Glenview, etc will all continue as they have been in the future, as these all have downtown areas, walkable cores, and good public transportation. Maybe the edges of these cities get hurt some, but not killed.

My problem with the article then is that how do far out suburbs become poor magnets, unless the poor don't work at all. I would think that if you are poor and work and the environment is that energy prices are very high (costly to heat homes and drive a car), how does a far out large house fit for a poor person? Maybe these homes lose value, but then we are at a cost of housing vs cost of transportation balancing act.

My take is that suburbs that have a nice downtown and good public transportation will be the biggest winners in the future, which isn't too different from today. The farther out suburbs may be the losers and urban cores will have their typical ups and downs, as it is cool or not cool to live in the city. In the end, I think that Chicagoland's structure is generally a winner.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by almost3am

My problem with the article then is that how do far out suburbs become poor magnets, unless the poor don't work at all. I would think that if you are poor and work and the environment is that energy prices are very high (costly to heat homes and drive a car), how does a far out large house fit for a poor person? Maybe these homes lose value, but then we are at a cost of housing vs cost of transportation balancing act.

My take is that suburbs that have a nice downtown and good public transportation will be the biggest winners in the future, which isn't too different from today. The farther out suburbs may be the losers and urban cores will have their typical ups and downs, as it is cool or not cool to live in the city. In the end, I think that Chicagoland's structure is generally a winner.

Presumably, the poor won't have a choice. All they'll be able to afford will be the far our large houses, which, according to the article, will be carved up into smaller rentals by then. The question that I have is how they'll be able to get around single family zoning regulations in order to accomplish this. These communities aren't stupid, they know that apartments will bring problems. They won't allow that to happen without a fight.

In other words, I don't buy into everything the author says. I do agree with his fundamental premise that land near the city center will increase in desirability. I don't think it will volley between "cool and uncool" like dress shirts with pinstripes do every few years. I agree that Chicagoland's structure is generally a winner, but do think we need to try and stop sprawl and do more to encourage adaptive reuse of urban areas.

[almost3am]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I don't think it will volley between "cool and uncool" like dress shirts with pinstripes do every few years. I agree that Chicagoland's structure is generally a winner, but do think we need to try and stop sprawl and do more to encourage adaptive reuse of urban areas.

I guess my "cool vs uncool" is not really a great term, but generally my view is that major urban centers have ups and downs (like everywhere), which isn't normally a short term thing, it is more over decades. My view is that major urban centers are on the upswing right now and maybe in a decade that will change. Really, for the next decade or so it could be driven largely by where the Baby Boomers decide to locate in retirement.

I agree on the sprawl issue, but I think suburbs may become more urban (but different than downtown Chicago urban) and that will be where a lot of growth occurs...just different growth from today.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by BRU67

The question that I have is how they'll be able to get around single family zoning regulations in order to accomplish this. These communities aren't stupid, they know that apartments will bring problems. They won't allow that to happen without a fight.

If a community is virtually abandoned, the constituents who are left won't care about zoning laws. Laws can be changed.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by almost3am

I agree on the sprawl issue, but I think suburbs may become more urban (but different than downtown Chicago urban) and that will be where a lot of growth occurs...just different growth from today.

I think suburbia will densify around transit nodes. This is how cities were formed in the 19th century in the first place, afterall. If the railroad didn't come to your town, your town didn't survive or grow beyond a few residents.

Tranportation systems form our environment more than people realize.