Why the rent in Chicago is cheap? (Washington, Sheridan: how much, luxury)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1,300 sq ft is not uncommon for an apartment in Chicago. I rent out a 3-flat (4 units including garden unit) in Lakeview and each unit is 1,400 sq ft, all 2 bed/2 bath. Virtually every Chicago 3 flat will offer around 1,300 - 1,400 sq feet per floor.
800 sq ft is probably on the smaller end for a 2 bd.
I was kinda thinking the same thing. My vintage multi-bedroom apartments were always at least 1200SF. They didn't seem hard to find either.
WP apartments must be far tinier than the average in Lakeview or Lincoln Park then. Our unit ended up being the largest of 5 we saw. All but one were two bedrooms -- you know in that your second room is closet-sized and may or may not have a window in it kind of way. Also I'm talking 2/1s here, not 2/2s which is really a completely different price point.
Every place we looked at in Wicker Park was a 2 or 3 flat. The one we ended up in was the coach house, but it had 3 flats. The front house apartments were actualy smaller than ours.
Not trying to be argumentative -- just surprised at the difference.
Every place we looked at in Wicker Park was a 2 or 3 flat. The one we ended up in was the coach house, but it had 3 flats. The front house apartments were actualy smaller than ours.
Not trying to be argumentative -- just surprised at the difference.
You're not being argumentative. I'm surprised as well at the difference. My apartment experiences were in Lincoln Park, Lake View and Edgewater. And it's quite some time ago....
Every place we looked at in Wicker Park was a 2 or 3 flat. The one we ended up in was the coach house, but it had 3 flats. The front house apartments were actualy smaller than ours.
Not trying to be argumentative -- just surprised at the difference.
The places you looked were definitely the exception (its also possible the land lord split each floor into a front and back unit), a standard Chicago lot of 25x125 housing a 2 or 3 flat will 9 times out of 10 have a minimum square footage of 1,200 sq ft. per floor. If the units you looked at were in old frame houses (vinyl siding) it is possible their depth was less, giving enough yard space to build a coach house.
Wicker Park wouldn't be any different than Lakeview or Lincoln Park in this situation.
Our coach house was wood frame, but the front unit was brick and like I said I have been in one of them -- they were definitely smaller (or possibly laid out differently and instead similar in size -- no where near 1000 sq ft +) They had a large deck on back, a little bit of grass and then our building -- it appeared to be a standard sized lot.
Now I'm trying to remember all the other units we saw (and realizing I was mostly full of malarky when I said they were all 2/3 flats) The first place was really nice when it came to finishes, but only a 1 bedroom and didn't even have a W/D in the building -- there's no way it was more than 600 or so sq/ft, but now that I think about it I don't think it was the only unit on the floor b/c I think it only had 3 exposures. It was also wood frame.
The second place we saw was in a stellar location, but the finishes were pretty bad and we immediately got a bad feeling from the landlord. It was definitely the only unit on the floor -- actually he had both the 1st and 2nd floor units available and we saw both. It was definitely a brick building, but in a weird spot on the street behind Jewel, so possibly not a standard lot. Oh but it did have a good-sized backyard (where he told us our dogs weren't allowed to poop). -- Edit: WAIT! That's a lie. The floors definitely were cut up because 1 of the bedrooms didn't have a window at all (the stairwell was in the way). He still wanted $1150 for the place.
The third place was in a super weird old industrial building and was a duplex down w/ one bedroom but 1 1/2 baths -- that place held an open house and it turned into a bidding war we couldn't afford (we offered 1300 and a 2-year lease and it rented for $1500). After living in Chicago though I'm glad our bedroom wasn't below grade -- I suspect we would have had bugs, flooding, rats or security issues. It was a big space, but probably only about 1,000 -- but this one, of course, wasn't in a standard building.
The fourth place rented 5 minutes before we got to our appointment, but was in a larger courtyard-style building. It was called "cozy" in the ad, so I suspect it was shoebox sized.
And the 5th was our place on Winchester I described above.
My point being, that's a lot of anomolies and thus, at least in my mind, pretty indicative of what one gets for their money in WP. If we'd wanted something larger, it's clear our budget of $1,200 was no where near sufficient. So I shouldn't have said "if you can find one" -- I should have said if any normal human can afford one.
We would have actually preferred to be in Lakeview actually, but my commute to the southwest 'burbs made that entirely impossible to consider. I think WP is just a really small neighborhood, and what we wanted was hard to find, which drove up prices. We didn't want to be west of Western or so far east the highway noise was overpowering, and Armitage and Division were our northern and southern boundaries -- even in a dense place like Chicago, that's not going to provide one with a ton of listings at any given time.
When I was a dogwalker I got to see all kinds of apartments in all parts of the north and northwest side. Literally 100 units or more. And I can't say I share the belief that "most" 2- or 3-flat apartments are in the 1200-1300sqft range. Units of that size are the exception, not the rule.
When I was a dogwalker I got to see all kinds of apartments in all parts of the north and northwest side. Literally 100 units or more. And I can't say I share the belief that "most" 2- or 3-flat apartments are in the 1200-1300sqft range. Units of that size are the exception, not the rule.
The reason Chicago is cheap is simple, it's because it used to be a more populous city and the population has declined somewhat, meaning there's lots of extra housing left (supply) and now there's less demand then there was. ...
This is simply not the case.
First, Chicago has been cheap for a very long time.
Second, have you been on the South and West sides? Chicago lost a great many housing units in those areas - they don't call it "urban prairie" in reference to prairie dogs.
Third, at least up until this decade, Chicago has never lost its adult population and, guess what, adults are who pay the rent. Chicago's population decline was completely accounted for by smaller household size, not by fewer households. Thus, the demand for housing units wasn't really reduced. Maybe fewer large, multi-room places were necessary, but over the same time Americans and Chicagoans expected/wanted larger apartment sizes, so it kinda balanced out.
There may have been a reduction in the number of households from 2000 to 2010, but rents didn't crash, and in the same timeframe there was also a loss of some housing units both from the elimination of public housing units and the combination of smaller units into bigger units and/or the deconversion of certain kinds of 2 and 3-flats into single family homes in gentrifying areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
