Itasca vs. Wheaton (Chicago, Glen Ellyn, Brookfield: real estate, homes, school districts)

[Humboldt1]

What do you guys think?

I am arguing they are relatively comparable, though Itasca is slightly closer in and bounded by less affluent communities while Wheaton is next door to more affluent community Glen Ellyn.

Wheaton is much larger but I would argue both communities are basically the same with regards to affluences.

Your thoughts?

[nanannie]

I would add to your post that Wheatons downtown has alot more to offer and the library and community events are superior.Schools as well. The parks and certainly the lovely area around the campus would help make it my choice over Itasca.

[chet everett]

In addition to nanannie's comments, the huge build out of south Wheaton has no real equal in Itasca, many more of the McMansions went up in a very compressed time frame. Not saying it is a good thing, but overall the addition to the "property tax base" was unmatched in Itasca.

[Humboldt1]

FMV,

Itasca and Wheaton are definitely an apples to oranges comparison as Wheaton has population of 55,416 while Itasca has only 8,302. You were definitely right on this one as with Wheaton being slightly more affluent, but I still think both areas have declining residential real estate prices and have yet to hit bottom and may be another year or so from bottom.

The reason I started this thread was to show that Itasca and Wheaton are comparable with regards to housing appreciation. I don't see either of them fairing all that different in this continued decline in prices in the suburban Chicago marketplace. Both are well-positioned in good school districts (Wheaton I admit is better at the high school level) and land locked with good access to rail.

This is for Itasca from Wikipedia for 2000:

The median income for a household in the village was $70,156, and the median income for a family was $78,700. Males had a median income of $51,816 versus $35,541 for females. The per capita income for the village was $34,117. About 3.1% of families and 4.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.4% of those under age 18 and 6.5% of those age 65 or over.

For Wheaton, including 2007 numbers:

According to a 2007 estimate, the median household income was $85,249, and the median family income was $107,552.[19] Males had a median income of $74,871 versus $48,485 for females. The per capita income for the city was $36,147. Below the poverty line are 2.3% of the population and 2.1% of the families. Of the total population, 3.3% of those under the age of 18 and 4.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

For 2000, Wheaton had median family income of $88,385, so you need to take the 7 year difference into account. I will try to find 2007 numbers for Itasca.

Basically, these are different towns, but I think they are both experiencing comparable declines in prices. Wheaton is much larger and has a university. Itasca is much closer to O'Hare and expressways. Wheaton may be slightly more affluent than Itasca (which I concede to FMV), but I think both areas are seeing prices continuing to decline.

What do others think?

[fairmarketvalue]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

FMV,

Itasca and Wheaton are definitely an apples to oranges comparison as Wheaton has population of 55,416 while Itasca has only 8,302. You were definitely right on this one as with Wheaton being slightly more affluent, but I still think both areas have declining residential real estate prices and have yet to hit bottom and may be another year or so from bottom.

The reason I started this thread was to show that Itasca and Wheaton are comparable with regards to housing appreciation. I don't see either of them fairing all that different in this continued decline in prices in the suburban Chicago marketplace. Both are well-positioned in good school districts (Wheaton I admit is better at the high school level) and land locked with good access to rail.

This is for Itasca from Wikipedia for 2000:

The median income for a household in the village was $70,156, and the median income for a family was $78,700. Males had a median income of $51,816 versus $35,541 for females. The per capita income for the village was $34,117. About 3.1% of families and 4.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5.4% of those under age 18 and 6.5% of those age 65 or over.

For Wheaton, including 2007 numbers:

According to a 2007 estimate, the median household income was $85,249, and the median family income was $107,552.[19] Males had a median income of $74,871 versus $48,485 for females. The per capita income for the city was $36,147. Below the poverty line are 2.3% of the population and 2.1% of the families. Of the total population, 3.3% of those under the age of 18 and 4.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

For 2000, Wheaton had median family income of $88,385, so you need to take the 7 year difference into account. I will try to find 2007 numbers for Itasca.

Basically, these are different towns, but I think they are both experiencing comparable declines in prices. Wheaton is much larger and has a university. Itasca is much closer to O'Hare and expressways. Wheaton may be slightly more affluent than Itasca (which I concede to FMV), but I think both areas are seeing prices continuing to decline.

What do others think?

No reason to "concede". Please see post #42 on the RE forum thread titled "homes more affordable now than ever?"
http://citi-data/forum/real-estate56...-now-than-ever

[ihynes]

Wheaton has excellent schools and playgrounds, but you have to be a fundamentalist zealot to be happy there.

[nanannie]

Originally Posted by ihynes

Wheaton has excellent schools and playgrounds, but you have to be a fundamentalist zealot to be happy there.

nonsense

[irish setter girl]

Originally Posted by ihynes

Wheaton has excellent schools and playgrounds, but you have to be a fundamentalist zealot to be happy there.

I am the furthest thing from a fundamentalist zealot and have been here almost 30 years. I don't even belong to a church

[Joe107]

Originally Posted by ihynes

Wheaton has excellent schools and playgrounds, but you have to be a fundamentalist zealot to be happy there.

Heaven forbid a town be family oriented and churchgoing. (which ironically are things that contribute to good schools)

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by ihynes

Wheaton has excellent schools and playgrounds, but you have to be a fundamentalist zealot to be happy there.

Thats ok. Id be jealous of Wheaton if I lived in Brookfield, too. I understand.