relocating to chicago and need advice :) (homes, employment, neighborhoods)

[4122]

You can still get a pretty good sized house in a nice area in your budget and within a reasonable distance from work.

17913 66th Ave, Tinley Park, IL 60477 is For Sale - Zillow

http://http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1124-191st-St-Homewood-IL-60430/4319228_zpid/

[UC18]

Originally Posted by knitgirl

Downtown and McCormick Place are really 2 separate areas

McCormick Place is in South Loop, which is part of downtown by any definition I've ever seen or heard. I suppose you could say it's at the edge of downtown, but I don't think you can really say it's a separate area from downtown.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by chet everett

While one could technically afford a home inside Chicago if one's budget is $250K the value of such of a home is questionable.

It could probably be valued at somewhere around, say, $250K.

[UC18]

Originally Posted by Drover

It could probably be valued at somewhere around, say, $250K.

Ha. That was my thought, too. Home values are generally only "questionable" when you get in the very high (say, Trump Tower penthouse for tens of millions) or very low (say, under $10K in Detroit) ranges where it is difficult to find the right specific buyer. At $250K (or $90K, or $900K) home values are usually fairly clear. Their value is what they tend to sell for, by definition.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by UC18

McCormick Place is in South Loop, which is part of downtown by any definition I've ever seen or heard. I suppose you could say it's at the edge of downtown, but I don't think you can really say it's a separate area from downtown.

It's a separate area from downtown. It is not directly connected to the critical mass of business/government/hospitality/entertainment that forms downtown. It's as far away or farther from the CBD as Chinatown, Pilsen, or Piper's Alley, but nobody reckons those areas are part of downtown.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by UC18

Ha. That was my thought, too. Home values are generally only "questionable" when you get in the very high (say, Trump Tower penthouse for tens of millions) or very low (say, under $10K in Detroit) ranges where it is difficult to find the right specific buyer. At $250K (or $90K, or $900K) home values are usually fairly clear. Their value is what they tend to sell for, by definition.

The requirement of city workers, including teachers employees by CPS, to live within the city limits provides a market distorting driver to prices. Without that requirement, which could be repealed rather easily by the City Council, prices in areas like Garfield Ridge or Jefferson Park ( on the western edges of the city along the Stevenson and Kennedy respectively) would likely tumble.

As shown by the listings homes of larger size / greater utility located in areas with much more uniformly desirable schools prices outside the city limits reflect a less "externally manipulated" price and as such are very likely a more stable value.

[Drover]

There are numerous "artificial" factors that drive housing prices in any market. Why you choose to to focus on that particular one is anyone's guess, except maybe to give you yet another opportunity to passive-aggressively disparage the city of Chicago.

Absent some anomalous factor specific to that transaction, a house in Chicago with a selling price of $250K does not have "questionable" value. Its approximate value can be readily ascertained by its selling price.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Drover

There are numerous "artificial" factors that drive housing prices in any market. Why you choose to to focus on that particular one is anyone's guess, except maybe to give you yet another opportunity to passive-aggressively disparage the city of Chicago.

Absent some anomalous factor specific to that transaction, a house in Chicago with a selling price of $250K does not have "questionable" value. Its approximate value can be readily ascertained by its selling price.

This is correct, plus there is probably near 0% chance of the residence requirement being lifted.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

This is correct, plus there is probably near 0% chance of the residence requirement being lifted.

Even if there were any significant possibility it would be lifted, and even if -- especially if -- the residency requirement placed that much price pressure on the city's real estate market, that uncertainty would be factored into housing prices.

[UC18]

Originally Posted by Drover

It's a separate area from downtown. It is not directly connected to the critical mass of business/government/hospitality/entertainment that forms downtown. It's as far away or farther from the CBD as Chinatown, Pilsen, or Piper's Alley, but nobody reckons those areas are part of downtown.

So, do you consider only the northern part of South Loop to be part of downtown? Or do you consider South Loop to not extend south of Cermak? Either answer is fine-- I'm just always fascinated to hear people's different definitions for these things. I've heard the definition of "downtown" that suburbanites use, which tends to refer to all or most of the city, and then I've heard the definition of "downtown" that most people in the city use, which tends to refer to Loop, South Loop, West Loop, and Near North, but I've never heard a definition that didn't include South Loop. I have heard varying definitions of where South Loop ends, though.