The Second-Rate City? (Chicago: homes, gated, income)

[MannheimMadman]

Hmm..I recall reading somewhere else that Toronto has more hi-rises than Chicago...or am I thinking purely residential? I was just in Toronto 3 weeks ago, and I definitely felt that they had more skyscrapers/hi-rises than us. The rate at which they are building them is also phenomenal - the skyline is packed with cranes and construction.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by MannheimMadman

Hmm..I recall reading somewhere else that Toronto has more hi-rises than Chicago...or am I thinking purely residential? I was just in Toronto 3 weeks ago, and I definitely felt that they had more skyscrapers/hi-rises than us. The rate at which they are building them is also phenomenal - the skyline is packed with cranes and construction.

Toronto has many more buildings in the 11-15 story range, they don't compare to Chicago at all in the 50-60+ story range. Both are fine, but it is important to look at the definition of "skyscrapers" when you look at this type of thing.

[uffthefluff]

"being built"

[emathias]

Originally Posted by uffthefluff

"being built"

i.e. "The state of being muscular"

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by MannheimMadman

Hmm..I recall reading somewhere else that Toronto has more hi-rises than Chicago...or am I thinking purely residential? I was just in Toronto 3 weeks ago, and I definitely felt that they had more skyscrapers/hi-rises than us. The rate at which they are building them is also phenomenal - the skyline is packed with cranes and construction.

They aren't even close technically. They are building a handful of buildings now, but even after those are done,and the ones proposed to be completed in 2017-2020 are done, they still won't even come close to Chicago.

Breakdown of *Existing* buildings;

700-1000+ Foot Buildings:
Chicago: 19
Toronto: 9

600-699 Ft Buildings:
Chicago: 25
Toronto: 5

500-599 Ft Buildings
Chicago: 61
Toronto: 13

400-499 Ft Buildings:
Chicago: 84
Toronto: 47

300-399 Ft Buildings:
Chicago: 131
Toronto: 112

200-299 Ft Buildings:
Chicago: 224
Toronto: 149

100-199 Ft Buildings:
Toronto: 246
Chicago: 189 (but about 20-25 are radio towers)


Those are just the buildings that have a height listed on Emporis though. There's many others with no height listed for Chicago that are at least 100 feet high.

[n1ey]

Originally Posted by uffthefluff

Honestly, this author is a buffoon when it comes to the subject of Chicago and its future. No matter how many years running Chicago has the most or second most business investment/expansion per capita or ranks above LA, Houston, Boston or DC in economic vitality scorings, or has the second most fast growing private businesses, etc. this author continues to beat the drum of doom and gloom. It's absolutely ridiculous.

The reason for the author's bias is obviously due to his having lived here and now deciding to move - he has suddenly decided to focus only on negatives. Of course Chicago looks quite awful if you literally ignore any and all positive assessments of the city.

The economic situation might continue to move impeded from the political situation. However, the political situation is the worse in the country. You can not run a deficit budget forever. Something has to be done. Eventually, you have will have to lay off police and fire, etc. You can't pretend that a correction is not required.

I've been to Chicago many times and I have always thought about a long term stay. I've seen the area around the south side improve immensely. Printer's Row is a bit funny to me.

Yet, I seem to think that doing better doesn't mean that there are things going wrong.

Bill

[chet everett]

The basic fallacy is that nation can indeed run a deficit "forever" and can even tolerate continuous growth in the absolute size of that deficit so long as the total economy also grows at a rate equal / greater ... In terms of global monetary results the effect of increasing deficits will be diminished buying power / increasing inflation, but so long as people continue to function in the economy (working, buying goods, paying taxes) there is little to suggest that things cannot remain pretty tolerable...

When it comes to states they of course do not have the power to print their own currency / manipulate rates they pay for borrowing and MUST have budget that is at least TECHNICALLY in balance between income/revenue and spending. To do otherwise would force lenders / bond buyers to eventually cease to fund the state's on going financial needs...

For a city, especially in a state like Illinois that has a uniform income tax, it is even more disastrous to have any kind of deficit for any length of time because of the snowball effect of attempts to raise local taxes eventually driving more businesses and residents out of the city. At least Daley and Emmanuel seem to know this and try valiantly to keep traditional residential taxes as low as possible, though one could argue that the revenue that the City tries to capture from parking, amusements, sales tax and "fines" are simply "sugar coated taxes" that go do more easily than the "bitter pill" of higher property taxes.

Cities that have run deficits for more than a short time end up in default and without an expensive bailout can end up in receivership -- this is the technical end result of a having insufficient revenue /assets to meet ongoing bills and it has happened though typically in much smaller cities... Harrisburg Files for Bankruptcy on Overdue Incinerator Debt - Bloomberg Troubled RI city in receivership loses democracy - Yahoo! News There is currently not much chance of Chicago being in such a situation soon , however when it burns through all the revenue generated by asset sales (like the parking deals...) in a fraction of the time that the "lease" runs (or worse, ends up obligated to "pay back" all the cash received due to poorly structured deals -- Analysis: Bad Skips Worse, Goes Directly To Disaster When It Comes To Parking Meter Lease Deal | theexpiredmeter.com) the inevitable result is insolvency.

Really there is just no way to expect that all the costs of running Chicago will be covered by the current taxes.

Taxes will have to be increased, and if those taxes are the type that will result in people leaving to avoid paying the taxes, the revenues will not keep pace with expenses. As the linked article suggests, should the City attempt to make doing business here more costly (through any combination of increased real estate taxes, local employment / income taxes, or increased state income taxes...) the ease with which firms could shift employment to lower cost locations would almost certainly result in those attempts to raise revenue falling short. While Chicago is certainly not alone in this dilemma, there are cities that do face such tough choices. The depth of the "tech industry" in Silicon Valley largely makes that area immune to such tough choices, as does the dominance of NYC in global finance, and movie /entertainment in Hollywood /LA., and DC in government / lobbying. I would also toss the Houston & Dallas areas in as examples as US centers of petroleum. Commodities and derivatives do not employ enough Chicagoan nor are the revenues a large enough portion of Chicago's total revenues to have the same effect, which basically means that with the right "nudge" those markets could be persuaded to relocate to NY or London or basically anyplace with sufficient network connectivity. (Atlanta? why not...)

[chet everett]

The basic fallacy is that nation can indeed run a deficit "forever" and can even tolerate continuous growth in the absolute size of that deficit so long as the total economy also grows at a rate equal / greater ... In terms of global monetary results the effect of increasing deficits will be diminished buying power / increasing inflation, but so long as people continue to function in the economy (working, buying goods, paying taxes) there is little to suggest that things cannot remain pretty tolerable...

When it comes to states they of course do not have the power to print their own currency / manipulate rates they pay for borrowing and MUST have budget that is at least TECHNICALLY in balance between income/revenue and spending. To do otherwise would force lenders / bond buyers to eventually cease to fund the state's on going financial needs...

For a city, especially in a state like Illinois that has a uniform income tax, it is even more disastrous to have any kind of deficit for any length of time because of the snowball effect of attempts to raise local taxes eventually driving more businesses and residents out of the city. At least Daley and Emmanuel seem to know this and try valiantly to keep traditional residential taxes as low as possible, though one could argue that the revenue that the City tries to capture from parking, amusements, sales tax and "fines" are simply "sugar coated taxes" that go do more easily than the "bitter pill" of higher property taxes.

Cities that have run deficits for more than a short time end up in default and without an expensive bailout can end up in receivership -- this is the technical end result of a having insufficient revenue /assets to meet ongoing bills and it has happened though typically in much smaller cities... Harrisburg Files for Bankruptcy on Overdue Incinerator Debt - Bloomberg Troubled RI city in receivership loses democracy - Yahoo! News There is currently not much chance of Chicago being in such a situation soon , however when it burns through all the revenue generated by asset sales (like the parking deals...) in a fraction of the time that the "lease" runs (or worse, ends up obligated to "pay back" all the cash received due to poorly structured deals -- Analysis: Bad Skips Worse, Goes Directly To Disaster When It Comes To Parking Meter Lease Deal | theexpiredmeter.com) the inevitable result is insolvency.

Really there is just no way to expect that all the costs of running Chicago will be covered by the current taxes.

Taxes will have to be increased, and if those taxes are the type that will result in people leaving to avoid paying the taxes, the revenues will not keep pace with expenses. As the linked article suggests, should the City attempt to make doing business here more costly (through any combination of increased real estate taxes, local employment / income taxes, or increased state income taxes...) the ease with which firms could shift employment to lower cost locations would almost certainly result in those attempts to raise revenue falling short. While Chicago is certainly not alone in this dilemma, there are cities that do face such tough choices. The depth of the "tech industry" in Silicon Valley largely makes that area immune to such tough choices, as does the dominance of NYC in global finance, and movie /entertainment in Hollywood /LA., and DC in government / lobbying. I would also toss the Houston & Dallas areas in as examples as US centers of petroleum. Commodities and derivatives do not employ enough Chicagoan nor are the revenues a large enough portion of Chicago's total revenues to have the same effect, which basically means that with the right "nudge" those markets could be persuaded to relocate to NY or London or basically anyplace with sufficient network connectivity. (Atlanta? why not...)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by chet everett

...
which basically means that with the right "nudge" those markets could be persuaded to relocate to NY or London or basically anyplace with sufficient network connectivity. (Atlanta? why not...)

While it could happen, I think you underestimate what it would take to relocate the actual entire business of a set of exchanges the size of CME Group. The total employment may be lower as a portion than other places, but for the couple thousand direct employees, most of whom would be - not impossible, but - hard to replace, and the tens of thousand of affiliated workers, it would be difficult to move the exchange. If you moved to New York, your costs would mostly go up significantly. If you moved to Atlanta, your costs might not go up, but you'd have to work harder to find the right employees and in something like trading, employees matter more than anything except maybe network connectivity. Indiana might have had a shot, but moving an exchange the size of CME anywhere else would be like moving a corporate headquarters to a prairie in the middle of Kansas. You can do it, and it certainly looks cheaper on paper, but the actual cost of setting up the infrastructure and moving the people and continuing to attract the people makes it an enormous gamble. I don't see the CME making that sort of gamble unless Illinois or Chicago are stupid enough to make it their only choice.

[chet everett]

I think we actually agree on the details of what such a move would've entailed, but the fact is that "bluff" or not the exchange was able to "shake off" (shake down??) the State and it's threatened tax hikes. The reason I bring this up is NOT becuase I think there is going to be a renewed effort to move the exchanges (or at least enough of the infrastructure to technically weasel out of any new taxes aimed at them....) but to illustrate the horrible barrel that business have Illinois and Chicago over -- any business of substantial size / influence can easily threaten to "take their ball and play their own game" in another city if the state or city attempts to target taxes toward any firm / industry...

Beleive me, I certainly don't want to see any more large firms weasel out of "standard" taxes, but given the scope of the spending problems the state and city are facing I can't see any way out from under the gloom of increasing overall taxes and "incentivizing" large employers to stay with tax give aways...