Is Chicago's Loop The Hottest Urban Center In the U.S.? (Naperville: condos, how much)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by emathias

Actually, a strong argument can be made that at least half of the Chicago market's real estate issues were the direct result of outright fraud. And I don't mean bankers selling products to people who were dumb, I mean organized groups getting loans originated on properties that were bought by mythical entities and the "seller" danced away with the money. It was a real problem, a big problem, and while there are some press stories on it here and there I'm actually shocked there aren't bigger actions coming out of the mess.

Some of the market was affected by this issue but no way nearly 50%. With 60% of residential properties underwater, there is no way half of that can be attributed to the organized fraud you reference. There aren't bigger actions coming out of the mess because it was not as significant as you claim. Many homeowners, with nice equity, over-leveraged their homes and walked after ''cashing-out''. Huge pyramid scheme manipulating the one asset considered to be the American Dream-home ownership.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Some of the market was affected by this issue but no way nearly 50%. With 60% of residential properties underwater, there is no way half of that can be attributed to the organized fraud you reference. There aren't bigger actions coming out of the mess because it was not as significant as you claim. Many homeowners, with nice equity, over-leveraged their homes and walked after ''cashing-out''. Huge pyramid scheme manipulating the one asset considered to be the American Dream-home ownership.

The fraud schemes increased the prices higher than they otherwise would have been in marginal areas. That, in turn, allowed people to either get a purchase or refinance mortgage for a higher valuation than they otherwise would have. It doesn't take anywhere near 50% of citywide sales being fraudulent to dramatically move prices in areas that didn't actually have much real turnover. So it was really kind of a mix of fraud and over-aggressive banks selling products to people as "easy money" against prices spiked by localized fraud. Sales prices influence refinancing, which is part (not all, but part) of the distressed sale market now.

With highly leveraged products like mortgages, it only takes a few percentage movement in price to wipe out equity. If fraud moved prices 10% in a neighborhood, and people bought with 5% or 10% down mortgages, when that 10% is (over)corrected back below what a normal price would be all those buyers are now underwater. I didn't mean that 50% of the sales or distressed homes were the direct result of fraud, but I think a high percentage are at least collateral damage from fraud.

[linicx]

The recurring comments I see state if Chicago does XYZ it can compete with NYC, or LA. Why should it? Assuming, for a minute, all three had the same financial stability, on what level would they compete?

Chicago does not have an ocean at its shores. It does not have Sandy Hook storms. It does not have LA earth quakes or wildfires. It doesn't have an I-5, aging bridges, or a desert. It doesn't have a D.C. Boston, or S.F., to compete with for tourist dollars, new business, or qualified employees. On the other hand it doesn't have Hollywood, Broadway, the fashion runways or the diamond district.

Chicago doesn't have competition. It has sports. You don't pay $1800 for a 1 bd walkup two blacks from the lake. There are many different methods to move traffic in an orderly fashion in, thru, around and out of the city. It does have the largest futures market in the world. I don't hear anyone in LA talk about dinner on the 95th floor of any building. I'm not sure about NYC. The #1 destination in the Midwest is Chicago. It doesn't have palm trees; it has large forests. Chicago is an architectural destination.

The cities that have survived 200 years know how to reinvent themselves. Today it is entirely different than it was in the 1960s. Yes, the housing market failure, the recession, and the pension is a problem today. The millionaires and billionaires are not jumping ship. Twenty years from now it won't look like it did in the '80s. It takes time for a city to reinvent itself. It doesn't happen overnight. Don't Chicago out yet.

When I read some of the prognostications for Chicago's future it reminds me of a slick stock prospectus It looks good on paper, but it doesn't mean the expectations are realistic.

[foo cities]

It's the best downtown in the country! It's a phenomenal success! What an exciting urban center for the world to emulate. Look at all those towers. It has everything a big city lover can want! You go, Chi!

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by emathias

Even in 2000, Chicago had one of the most-populated downtowns (as defined as "within 2 miles of City Hall" of any downtown. Chicago certain wasn't "starting from zero."

To wit:


In the future, read the article before spouting off.

City Hall in New York is oddly sited, right at the southern tip of the island (because New York was founded there 400 years ago and grew northward), so all the land within 2 miles of City Hall was already built on by about 1850. It's hard to grow that population. Chicago had much more open land to develop or redevelop close to downtown.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by conrad1

Part of Chicago's problem has been the declining population since about 1950. I think if Chicago's downtown area could boom like this article says and we get an influx of population and businesses, it would be really cool to begin to compete with New York, San Fran, and LA as a strong growing city. I lived in New York for a few years and would without hesitation would choose (and did choose) Chicago as the place I want to live. It is still faced paced, but not in-your-face so, has a much more laid back attitute, more real people, and of course cost of living wise it can't be beat. I just think that Chicago has a several large problems to deal with and overcome before it can really become the "hottest" urban center in the country like the article says.

Chicago's downtown trumps LA (easily). LA's focus has been on the west side until just recently.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Sure but the greater metro areas are closer in size. 7 million in SF Bay Area 9.5 million in Chicagoland.

And sure, although SF proper is only 800,000, but thats about the population of the part of Chicago proper thats actually desirable and urban. The core of San Francisco, Chinatown, financial district, Tenderloin, Haight, etc., etc. are dense and 24/7.

The Bay Area just has three anchor cities and is more multicentered (SF which is urban, Oakland which is somewhat urban, as well industrial with poverty and crime issues, San Jose, which is clearly a suburban city but so are the far NW and far SW sides of Chicago), while Chicago only has one: Chicago.

I thought Evanston might qualify with Northwestern University and a significant downtown (from what I have heard) as a second prominent city (anchor) in the Chicago region..if not, maybe it will in the near future.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

I thought Evanston might qualify with Northwestern University and a significant downtown (from what I have heard) as a second prominent city (anchor) in the Chicago region..if not, maybe it will in the near future.

Evanston is basically attached to Chicago, and only has around 100k in population, anyway..

The closest big city would be Milwaukee, only 90 miles away..

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

City Hall in New York is oddly sited, right at the southern tip of the island (because New York was founded there 400 years ago and grew northward), so all the land within 2 miles of City Hall was already built on by about 1850. It's hard to grow that population. Chicago had much more open land to develop or redevelop close to downtown.

All the land within two miles of Chicago's City Hall was built out by 1900, so I'm not sure what your point was. We're talking about 2000 to 2010.

Unless, of course, you're claiming that Battery Park City, the World Trade Center, all that housing between Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges, New York By Gehry, etc, etc, etc, were all built before 1850. And that doesn't even consider conversion projects - for example SoHo is within 2 miles of New York's City Hall, and in the 1950s was nothing but industrial uses and now it's one of the most expensive residential areas in the nation. And, for the record, while not as plentiful as in Chicago, there are still surface lots in Lower Manhattan.

[Inn Genius]

Oh yeah, Chicago has the best urban core in the Midwest. In the U.S.A. Chicago is up there with New York but on a smaller scale.

Definitely a better Downtown than L.A. But L.A. has improved slowly but surely. More walkable now with better transit and more of a true city than it used to be. Chicago still beats it though.