Portage Park - rising or falling? (Chicago, Springfield: rentals, crime, home search)

[DSMHawk]

Hey all - my family is embarking on a home search that will likely see our family target areas of NW Chicago. We currently rent in Lincoln Square and love the area, but don't think we can afford to buy anything there that would make sense for our family. So, eyes looking west. Generally, we are seeking other young families, walkability, access to transit, parks, etc. (though I commute to Evanston so am resigned to driving, womp). We know we won't match the walkability and volume of 'stuff' available in Lincoln Square/Ravenswood.

Considering Portage Park, JeffPark, Old Irving, Norwood Park, Edison Park (any park will do, apparently). Of those, having a hard time getting excited about Portage Park - we've heard mixed reviews on the area. One day we'll see an article touting its status as the 'next Lincoln Square' w/ the revival of 6 Corners, nascent restaurant scene, etc.

The next day we'll see an article citing the increasing gang violence and property crime encroaching from neighborhoods to the south. Seems to us like the future of PP is a bit of a coin flip.

So...if we are taking bets here, which way do we see Portage Park going in the next 5-7 yrs? Buy in or focus further north?

Thanks for the thoughts and insights.

[Fighting Fungus]

I would probably choose a northwest suburb over Portage Park with a family. Portage Park may go up in the future but that is contingent on our politicians getting it together.

[NealIRC]

The south end of Portge Park, which is just north of Belmont, has gangs. Just north of Belmont-Cragin neighborhood, and largely Hispanic. I think North of Irving Park is fine, White, and Eastern European.

[Vlajos]

I know quite a few millenials/hipsters buying in Portage because it's affordable. Long term, I think it is on the upswing.

[UrbanCheetah]

Eh I think it's an okay neighborhood. The further north you go within the neighborhood the better. But if it were me I would probably buy in Jefferson Park or Irving Park neighborhoods before Portage Park. Portage Park lacks direct access to the expressway and the El, which IMO means it will probably take a while for it to be a neighborhood of high value. Now it's not super far from the expressway or train but I lived in Portage Park for a good two years, and while safe and pleasant, I just think your money is better spent and it's more worth it in Jefferson Park or Irving Park.

[chet everett]

There are some posters that see/here "Chicago neighborhood" and reflexively say "on the upswing" however any honest analysis would have to factor in the increasing likelihood that the combination of forces that continues to make it more likely that Chicago Public Schools and the City of Chicago itself will have to both MASSIVELY increase taxes AND decrease services.

That decrease in services will likely means big cuts to the ranks of all categories of employees of CPS and City of Chicago, as those are currently major categories of home owners in many parts of Chicago that will put negative pressure on the ability of current home owners to remain in Chicago. Factor in the effect of increased taxes and the likely scenario will depress home prices.

The fact that there is positive inflow of young college educated workers into "hip" parts of Chicago does not offset the negative effects of current homeowners being under pressure. There is simply very little overlap between the two groups -- the needs / priorities of recent college grads are very different than those of longer term CPS and City of Chicago employees. The boom in rentals in hip neighborhoods will likely dissaude any of the recent grad types from moving to areas further away from the L or Kennedy, the current upward trend in rents will likely flatten. When the same sorts of patterns that have hit older firms in the "high tech" sector hit the current wave of tech firms and there are layoffs / cost saving consolidations in the "boom" firms there may very well be a glut of even newer rentals.

If the OP can relocate to an area with a better long term approach to dealing with the realities of governmental spending they will do far more to ensure their family's economic security than they could accomplish by moving from one over-prced area to a less desirable area.

Bluntly, even if the OP has an excellent position in Evanston it may make sense to consider relocation to a more fiscally stable area -- the negative consequences that are likely to impact even upper-income home owners in towns like Evanston will be hard to avoid. Areas with more business friendly climates are already causing folks in such prominent roles as the President of University of Illinois to warn that loss of faculty is a legitimate concern -- Killeen's plan for a U. of Illinois compact with the pols in Springfield - Chicago Tribune

[DSMHawk]

Thanks all for the insights.

We are definitely also considering first-ring suburbs, but sort of both being dragged kicking and screaming into that thought process. At the end of the day though, the trade-offs for family life vs. the real problems facing Chicago are very difficult to ignore, and we are now starting to understand why suburbs become attractive at this stage in life...even if we don't like it yet. Still, I'm an optimist so there's the lingering part of us that wants to stick it out and hope for the best for this city.

Evanston is an obvious choice, but the parts of Evanston we can afford are fairly limited. Skokie makes a lot of sense...but it is Skokie. Have also looked a bit at Park Ridge + Des Plaines but wouldn't want to go much further out than that.

For Portage Park, we are probably only interested in the parts of that neighborhood that keep us within striking distance of Metra and/or El. So, targeting east of Central and north of Addison primarily in that area. Still, all of your points are well taken.

[chet everett]

Optimsm is one thing, but the scale of the issues that continue to be "kicked down the road" by stopgap funding cannot be ignored -- https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...unding-for-now

Through several legislative actions by state lawmakers, CPS was able to close a $600 million gap in its budget, according to CPS.

But there is still a $300 million budget deficit that Claypool said was still being worked on.

There are quite literally many schools seeing MILLIONS cut from their spending and a shell game that will result in actual harm to kids in programs like special education -- https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...-twilight-zone

individual schools will now have to carry the costs of special education in their budgets, a departure from past practice where CPS' central office picked up those expenses. ... "They would rather have a positive [public relations] story rather than have a real conversation with stakeholders and solve real problems."

Most honest outside observers suggest that CPS has a mismatch between revenues and expenses of nearly $1B. Chicago Public Schools Faces Devastating Cuts Next Year: Chicagoist That represents about 20% of its total budget, for perspective consider what would happen to any normal household that had a 20% gap between what wages they brought home and what bills needed to be paid, that would quickly create a hole so deep that there is no way to dig out of it...

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by chet everett

It may make sense to consider relocation to a more fiscally stable area -- the negative consequences that are likely to impact even upper-income home owners in towns like Evanston will be hard to avoid. Areas with more business friendly climates are already causing folks in such prominent roles as the President of University of Illinois to warn that loss of faculty is a legitimate concern -- Killeen's plan for a U. of Illinois compact with the pols in Springfield - Chicago Tribune

This is a great point. Too many homebuyers ignore tax/financial issues when looking for a home. One should look at the effective tax rates, level of pension funding, budget, and school funding. These factors have huge potential to slam the brakes on any kind of property value appreciation and really belt homeowners right across the chops.

The nice thing about Chicago is that it has a relatively low tax rate. Even if taxes doubled, taxes would still be lower than many suburbs. Some low/mid income burbs have very high taxes and are still not taking care of growing needs. This is of particular concern in IL given that municipalities, not the state, are responsible for funding their own schools. And the less the residents can afford, the more needs the schools have.

[ToriaT]

Personally if I had children, I'd leave the City of Chicago unless I were rich and could afford to send them all to private schools. I'd look into inner ring suburbs...Evanston, Skokie, Park Ridge, Niles, Morton Grove, further west Oak Park, Berwyn, Forest Park, Brookfield, Elmwood Park. Now some of those have issues with schools too but have some okay grade schools the high schools may be a problem.

If I were to stay in the city I'd look at the far nw reaches of Chicago like Edgebrook, Sauganash, Forest Glen,Norwood Park, etc. Very expensive though.