Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Thank you all for all the comments. Having living hear my whole life I agree that European growth has slowed from the past, but the hispanic population has grown quite a lot and I believe the Chicago metro is one of the top places for hispanics. Its mexican population in the burbs and city is quite large for a midwestern city.
I love NYC and people keep brining it up, it is a fine fine city, our nations capital city in regards to media, fashion, finance. L.A. is hollywood and beautiful weather, scenery, but imo unless you are living in the hills it is kinda a tacky area IMO and extremely overpriced.
Personally and I know this has been said a thousand times over, but to me Chicago reminds me of a smaller New York that is cleaner and more affordable. There is a reason why this is said so many times. It is the only city in North American that has architecture that wows visitors, world class museums, fine fine fine dining all over the city, a great transportation system with the el being second, etc. etc. I have been to NYC in the winter many many times, maybe my experience, but it always feels just as cold and when you get to an extreme low of 8 to 3, what is the differnce, its freezing!!!
Guess what I am saying, with the above, you would think there would be a strong demand for the metro to grow due to good suburban schools, jobs, cheaper housing than the coasts, big city living in the city. I know the metro has grown, but very very slowly the last few decades.
Maybe I am just a homer and think the city is Top 5 city in the U.S. and No. 1 in regards to what you get for your money.
Thank you all for all the comments. Having living hear my whole life I agree that European growth has slowed from the past, but the hispanic population has grown quite a lot and I believe the Chicago metro is one of the top places for hispanics. Its mexican population in the burbs and city is quite large for a midwestern city.
I love NYC and people keep brining it up, it is a fine fine city, our nations capital city in regards to media, fashion, finance. L.A. is hollywood and beautiful weather, scenery, but imo unless you are living in the hills it is kinda a tacky area IMO and extremely overpriced.
Personally and I know this has been said a thousand times over, but to me Chicago reminds me of a smaller New York that is cleaner and more affordable. There is a reason why this is said so many times. It is the only city in North American that has architecture that wows visitors, world class museums, fine fine fine dining all over the city, a great transportation system with the el being second, etc. etc. I have been to NYC in the winter many many times, maybe my experience, but it always feels just as cold and when you get to an extreme low of 8 to 3, what is the differnce, its freezing!!!
Guess what I am saying, with the above, you would think there would be a strong demand for the metro to grow due to good suburban schools, jobs, cheaper housing than the coasts, big city living in the city. I know the metro has grown, but very very slowly the last few decades.
Maybe I am just a homer and think the city is Top 5 city in the U.S. and No. 1 in regards to what you get for your money.
People have this obsession (not you specifically) that population growth is some sort of indicia of a city's greatness. The greatest cities in the world have all lost population at some point or another. Chicago doesn't have to gain population. It's a smaller city than it was 50 years ago. But it's also cleaner, prettier, more educated, more diverse, and has far more amenities.
No you don't. New housing units are a very small part of the overall housing market. And no one decides to make a baby or immigrate to a new country or to take a job in a new city based on whether or not local housing construction is robust.
And this article is ridiculous. Chicago is known as the most pro-development major U.S. city, so the idea that Chicagoland isn't growing because new housing can't be built is basically absurd. Chicago can sprawl all the way to Iowa if there was such demand. The city is so pro development they basically pay developers to build new highrises downtown.
SF is like 1000x more NIMBY and anti-growth than Chicago, yet SF has extremely robust population growth. How does that figure into your theory?
Beyond that you fundamentally (I'd assume intentionally) missed the point. Chicago may have traditionally been pro-development, but its certainly not now (especially outside the loop/south loop/river north). Just this week, a developer walked away from the proposal to redevelop the ****ty grocery store on Diversey after the community and Alderman blocked it. In the west loop, a 300 unit apartment complex was changed to a 99 unit condo.
Meanwhile, many SFH are built where multi-unit once stood (and most of the city is zoned so this is the only legally permissible housing stock). The collection of these lead to the reduction in housing units in many of the most sought after neighborhoods, which may help property values for existing land owners, but isn't helpful to the region.
Hence, my data-backed point. Even when demand is there (ie Lincoln Park, not a cornfield outside Plainfield) , addtl supply is not. Then factor in the poor fiscal situation of the city and state, leaving soft demand in many other areas in the metro, not hard to see why the metro area is barely growing.
I love NYC and people keep brining it up, it is a fine fine city, our nations capital city in regards to media, fashion, finance. L.A. is hollywood and beautiful weather, scenery, but imo unless you are living in the hills it is kinda a tacky area IMO and extremely overpriced.
NYC is great, but it's become ridiculous with the cost of living. I'm there every week and this week even my driver, who's been in NYC (originally from Russia) was kind of crapping on NYC and saying how it's turned into BS now compared to when he arrived in the late 80s/early 90s. The only reason he's still there is for his son, but he knows that pretty much everywhere else in the US except for SF is cheaper.
Quote:
Personally and I know this has been said a thousand times over, but to me Chicago reminds me of a smaller New York that is cleaner and more affordable. There is a reason why this is said so many times. It is the only city in North American that has architecture that wows visitors, world class museums, fine fine fine dining all over the city, a great transportation system with the el being second, etc. etc. I have been to NYC in the winter many many times, maybe my experience, but it always feels just as cold and when you get to an extreme low of 8 to 3, what is the differnce, its freezing!!!
NYC and Chicago are mostly different (yes some similarities, but mostly different). However, I think Chicago is the only US city that is anywhere close to it when you're talking about "oh wow, big buildings!!!" (and IMO the high rise architecture off NYC is vastly overrated - their low rise architecture is way better).
NYC is warmer in winter, but it's not like you're visiting Florida. That's what a lot of people think - especially foreign people. That Chicago is like 0 degrees every night. My girlfriend (lives in NYC) mentioned Chicago to a few of her friends from China and they're like "yeah I love it, but doesn't it get really really cold during winter!?" When she mentions that it's usually max 10 degrees difference, they're kind of shocked and thought it would be more like 30 degrees difference. Instead of doing research, they just kind of fell into their stereotype when they actually really liked the city but didn't want to live there for literally only that reason.
I think the one thing that doesn't work in Chicago's favor (along with other things) is that whenever it's really cold or there's a huge once in five years blizzard, it's picked up nationally on the news. When that happens in somewhere like Minneapolis all the time, nobody really cares. When people see these types of things on the news, they assume that there's tons of blizzards and it's always in the negatives.
Quote:
Guess what I am saying, with the above, you would think there would be a strong demand for the metro to grow due to good suburban schools, jobs, cheaper housing than the coasts, big city living in the city. I know the metro has grown, but very very slowly the last few decades.
The jobs are coming, but the difference is that some are leaving so there's not much positive impact as far as pure numbers go (but economically speaking, maybe better). It's in the middle of a shift. The manufacturing industry today isn't what it was 30 years ago but industries like tech, services (consulting), and finance are growing. Eventually there needs to be a greater tipping point where it shifts the pure numbers into the greater positive section.
Quote:
Maybe I am just a homer and think the city is Top 5 city in the U.S. and No. 1 in regards to what you get for your money.
It's definitely top 5 in the US, though top 5 is always subjective because it depends on what you're looking for in a place. For some people it's not for them and others it is. For the COL though, it's a really good deal. There is definitely room for improvement though and hopefully we see some of that.
Beyond that you fundamentally (I'd assume intentionally) missed the point. Chicago may have traditionally been pro-development, but its certainly not now (especially outside the loop/south loop/river north). Just this week, a developer walked away from the proposal to redevelop the ****ty grocery store on Diversey after the community and Alderman blocked it. In the west loop, a 300 unit apartment complex was changed to a 99 unit condo.
Definitely depends on the neighborhood as some are definitely more pro development than others, but overall I kind of agree. It's a shame these things have happened. The residents in one section of Logan Square were trying to block a few mid rise towers from being built. There were flyers up near there talking about all the new units coming to Logan Square and how bad it is. I might agree with them if the areas they were talking about were already kind of cool and established, but in this particular case between Western and California? A lot of vacant storefronts and lots. The residents would rather keep a few abandoned buildings and some large vacant lots that are full of nothing but weeds than a few new developments. The alderman kind of took it to his own residents and is allowing everything there. To their point, the neighborhood will change and property values will go up - though the area right near there has been changing for a bit already with rising property values anyway.
A similar thing happened in River North a few weeks ago when residents were complaining about a new proposal and how their views would be compromised. The alderman who was there when River North started to come into its own got up and talked to those people about it. I think he mentioned about how there is no God-given entitlement to their views or something, which is good point - as bad as losing a view could be.
If there's one major thing that really angers me about development in Chicago, it's the NIMBYism that goes on like the above. Yeah, you don't want things to become overdeveloped (and I don't think anywhere in the US is in danger of really being over developed), but it's tiring to always read about how a development was downsized (or even canceled like last week) because some residents were worried about 75 more residents, maybe 35 of which have cars in their neighborhood and that it will somehow make traffic right around them unbearable. Or maybe something like the tower that will replace the Jewel at Clark/Division - cut down by several stories because the residents around there were concerned about density even though it's already in one of the densest areas of town.
Quote:
Meanwhile, many SFH are built where multi-unit once stood (and most of the city is zoned so this is the only legally permissible housing stock). The collection of these lead to the reduction in housing units in many of the most sought after neighborhoods, which may help property values for existing land owners, but isn't helpful to the region.
Yep, this is another thing that kind of sucks about the latest trend. Though you have to look at what it was replacing. Often times these tear downs are replacing 2-4 unit buildings. If it's 3 one bedroom units being replaced by a 3 bedroom SFH, then population density wise, there may not be much of a dent. Economically, that might be another story.
I think the worst thing is around Armitage when someone tears down about 5 buildings to build some mansion over it.
Last edited by marothisu; 07-25-2015 at 02:01 AM..
The greatest cities in the world have all lost population at some point or another.
I doubt that's true, unless you're talking WW2 or some other natural disaster. Just looking in the Americas, When did LA lose population? What about Sao Paulo? Mexico City? Buenos Aires?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
Chicago doesn't have to gain population. It's a smaller city than it was 50 years ago. But it's also cleaner, prettier, more educated, more diverse, and has far more amenities.
Every city in the U.S. is "cleaner, prettier, more educated, more diverse and more amenities" than 50 years ago. So the fact that this is true for Chicago is meaningless. If you move to Peoria or Spokane or Fairbanks the exact same could be said.
Of course Chicago doesn't need to gain population; it will be fine in a relative sense. But the fact that it's the slowest growing major metro in the U.S. indicates that it isn't currently a popular destination relative to the past (when it did have significant growth).
Yep, this is another thing that kind of sucks about the latest trend. Though you have to look at what it was replacing. Often times these tear downs are replacing 2-4 unit buildings. If it's 3 one bedroom units being replaced by a 3 bedroom SFH, then population density wise, there may not be much of a dent. Economically, that might be another story.
I think the worst thing is around Armitage when someone tears down about 5 buildings to build some mansion over it.
Even if its 3 1 br units, its likely at least one of those units would be 2 people (often times 2&3 flats are 2 bed per unit). But as you mentioned, even if population isn't impacted, it is a negative economically if those rentals aren't replaced elsewhere. The neighborhood loses singles with some disposable income and replaces it with a 3 yr old, who doesn't frequent local stores at quite the same level.
SF has extremely robust population growth. This is true for both the city and metro. It is one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S., and one of the fastest growing metros in the U.S.
But you're right, there isn't much housing growth in SF (city or metro). So obviously SF is a perfect example of how preventing housing supply does not hamper growth.
Just think about what you're claiming. Growth is caused by three things- 1. Having babies, 2. International immigration and 3. Domestic moves. Would any of these three cohorts be significantly impacted on whether or not housing production were robust? Of course not.
You really think a Chinese family is going to say "Well, we were going to move to the Bay Area, but found their rate of housing production were too low, so it's off to Milwaukee". Or a young couple is going to say "We really wanted to have a baby, but once we heard the housing production numbers, we just decided to get a dog". Or an aspiring young techie is going to say "I wanted to move to the Bay Area to begin my career, but once I found out new housing was limited, I decided Corpus Christi is the place to grow!". All nonsense.
Housing production is like 2% of a metro area's housing stock. It's irrelevant. If someone wants to move to an area, they'll do so, whether they have to live in some old house, or do a share, or live in some dumpy housing situation. These things aren't dealbreakers like jobs and family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiddy
Beyond that you fundamentally (I'd assume intentionally) missed the point. Chicago may have traditionally been pro-development, but its certainly not now (especially outside the loop/south loop/river north).
And this is complete nonsense. Chicago is (by far) the most pro development major city in the U.S. NYC, LA, SF, Boston, DC are all vastly more NIMBY and anti-development than Chicago. Your claim that Chicago isn't growing because of NIMBYs is hilarious, because all the vastly more NIMBY cities have much higher growth.
Chicago has gigantic highrises going up everywhere (and this has been true for decades), a city administration that is super pro-development, and basically no zoning restrictions as long as you get alderman approval. Building in Chicago is easy as pie compared to NYC or SF, where the zoning is much tighter, where 20-30% of the building will have to be affordable housing, where parking will be blocked, where the height will have to be shortened, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
