Will suburban sprawl reverse? (Chicago, Naperville: real estate, 2010, condo)

[AaronK]

I know suburbanization of Chicagoland is popular, but does anyone think with rising fuel prices and a stagnating economy that this could reverse?

It doesn't seem like Chicago has been too hard hit by the recession, unless your poor. But estimates have been saying the price to fill up with go beyond 6-7 bucks a gallon by 2010 (it may be fearmongering). This means the price to travel, food, etc will be more expensive overall. I have a feeling that we will see a reverse in the current trend where people trade the city life for the suburban life. People just won't be able to afford to pay a ridiculous amount on gas, especially those working near the city.

[chet everett]

I have some theories on what may happen west of Rt 47, but there are too many variables to do more than speculate.

The sprawl east of that line is already so entrenched there is really little that can change.

The cost of gasoline will have some serious effects on all kinds of commuting and travel, but they way that will almost certainly be dealt with is a far greater reliance on cars powered by diesel and cars that rely to some extent or another on electric power.

The range and good mileage in stop & go traffic for diesels make them the top choice in Europe.

The environmental benefits, low total operating cost, and visible "statement" make electrics and hybrids appeal to a different group.

Much easier for Americans to buy new cars than to change the way people get around ...

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by AaronK

I know suburbanization of Chicagoland is popular, but does anyone think with rising fuel prices and a stagnating economy that this could reverse?

It doesn't seem like Chicago has been too hard hit by the recession, unless your poor. But estimates have been saying the price to fill up with go beyond 6-7 bucks a gallon by 2010 (it may be fearmongering). This means the price to travel, food, etc will be more expensive overall. I have a feeling that we will see a reverse in the current trend where people trade the city life for the suburban life. People just won't be able to afford to pay a ridiculous amount on gas, especially those working near the city.

I definitely believe it will. I think over time (and not over too much time either) more and more affluent people are going to see the benefits of proximity to the major city center, faster commute times, walkability and quality housing stock that Chicago neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs offer. Kind of a natural offshoot of the "back to the city" movement if you will. It's already starting.

There is a great article on this that was discussed on this Board a short while ago...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/chica...next-slum.html

[chet everett]

I read that article and don't want to have this thread turn into that one, but the big difference that the Chicago region has is commuter rail. Woodstock, Harvard and Elburn are all on/past that Rt 47 N-S line and you can live there and walk around the "traditional down towns", take the train in to Chicago and never have a car (though it would be tough...)

We don't need "new urbanism" to cure sprawl we already have "old urbanism meets farm towns" and really have had for decades. Places through out DuPage, and even parts of Cook Co have roots as places that anchored an agricultural region. The "in town" homes in many of these areas have ALWAYS been walkable and fit perfectly into a highly efficient rail-based commute. Densities are not so high as to encourage the crime that effects true urban areas and many towns had a heritage that discouraged / banned bars/liquor stores. You can laugh, but ask any cop who much crime is committed by sobber folks compared to those that are impaired...

The "inner ring" burbs have challenges in employment and need to rethink some of the services they offer / busineess they encourage. Some of these towns need to also do a much better job of being responsive to their citizens that are feed-up with the hi-jinks that go on.

I thing there are some very misguided efforts on the part of a handful of developers to make some suburbs too dense and too expensive, comically some of the very same developers have done some nice work.

A particularly funny example can be found along the BNSF, the developer (who I casually know and prefer not to ridicule in to obvious a fashion...) built his own personal condo "penthouse" atop one of the nice midsize (5 story?) building he developed. Well, he grew kinda bored with the place and has it listed for $2M... An eye popping number, but it is a "good value" for the 6,000 sq ft of ultra high end luxury (marble floors, handcrafted solid wood paneled library, giant gourment pack kitchen, etc etc etc). Only problem is that people see "penthouse" and don't expect their only "skyline" to be of the RR tracks running a few hundred yards away... You can find it on several of the public views into MLS. Quite a misstep. Somehow I don't think it is going to appeal to the typical suburban condo buyer. And somehow the town it is in is going to have a real hard time providing the 'downtown' feel of typical City condo buyer as this town's 'downtown' is oh, maybe one good sized block.

[punkerjim]

i thought many people were moving out of chicago proper because the taxes are too high.

[IbeDavid]

I believe one of the biggest reasons for the mass exodus of people living in chicago, is the gun violence and physical assaults. It is a totally uncontrolled problem now. Everytime you turn on the TV, Mayor Daley is giving a sermon on it. People want to live in a reasonably safe envirnoment and i think gasoline prices are secondary , albiet important. People will continue to move to the suburbs as well as some moving into the City of Chicago...but I dont think Gas prices are going to be the ultimate deciding factor.

[chet everett]

I am almost positive that Chicago is showing a rather large net gain in total housing units for the 1990 Census and 2000 Census and this will almost certainly continue in 2010...

Census 2000 General Demographic Profile Highlights

[gardener34]

I think that and the current real estate crunch will curb the "way out" sprawl growth in places like kendall and will counties for sure. Like stated above, if they don't have a commuter rail... an access to rail has always been a selling point for real estate around here. And now they are all the way out to elburn here.
I do agree with the Chicago violence thing. They can ban all the guns they want but the gangbangers still get them (stolen or otherwise) as they have NO regard for the law, they all do time eventually and just don't care. City or otherwise, people just want to get away from the gangs, and the real estate prices in the burbs that have gang problems show that as well.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by AaronK

I know suburbanization of Chicagoland is popular, but does anyone think with rising fuel prices and a stagnating economy that this could reverse?

No, and here's why: there's a tradeoff between transportation costs and real estate values near key employment cores, particularly downtown Chicago. As transportation costs rise, so does the demand on real estate near employment cores. At some point, the higher cost of real estate offsets any savings in transportation costs (including time-savings) gained by moving closer to the employment core. It may cost less to commute from Oak Park than to commute from Elmhurst, but it sure doesn't cost less to live in Oak Park than Elmhurst.

Additionally, there is also a whole ton of employment opportunities in the suburbs that are accessible from exurban areas. And as long as it's cheaper to live in DeKalb than Geneva, some people will be willing to commute to Naperville from DeKalb even if it's cheaper to commute there from Geneva. As long as the area population continues to grow, so will the boundaries of development.

Finally, there's a whole lot of NIMBYism to fight when it comes to trying to increase housing density in already established areas. In the long run it's probably often cheaper to buy out a farmer and develop the open land than try to infill an existing area.

[chet everett]

Not just cheaper, generally A LOT less work -- you set a trailer, bulldoze, the farm, con the town into paying for streeets, sewers, electric and maybe even water. Toss up half of dozen 'models' that are all variations of stuff that can built on the avg lot at just sell sell sell.

Doing infill means each site has special restrictions, limitations, costs, neighbor hassles, etc.

Which all slow things down.

Which mean less money in devloper pocket...