U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:29 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,761,585 times
Reputation: 5608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by swishplace View Post
I lived in Manhattan for a year back in '07 and let me tell you...if you don't know much about NYC before moving there, please visit first and I mean for a week or two if possible. I'm from Maryland, where I'm used to having a car, some elbow room, and nature pretty much on my doorstep wherever I live. I enjoyed my time in NYC, but it would take an exceptional circumstance for me to ever move back. To visit...NYC is fantastic, but living there is a type of lifestyle that isn't for everyone, and it wasn't for me. If you consider the skylines, I don't know much about Chicago, but I do know that there isn't much to brag about when your skyscrapers are so numerous that most of your streets are in shade. It feels cold. I don't understand the obsession with skyscrapers. A few of them is all a city needs, not so many that sunlight is blocked which is the case walking down many of the streets in Manhattan.
Definitely the same in Chicago in the loop, the good thing is, the shadows make it cooler in the summer instead of the sun beating down on you.

 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:30 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,761,585 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
the area's population has exploded, fastest growing central city population in the US. Sell now for 3 million or wait ten years and hope to get 10 million......that's what the owners of such properties are juggling....
It added 14k in a decade, not really an explosion, it's fastest growing b/c it previously was only 15k people in 2000 census, and things have changed since 2008. Most of that population is in the south loop towards michigan avenue or near east side east of michigan avenue, not the financial district. Most of the growth happened between 2004-2009. Many of the south loop properties are partially vacant, still looking for people to buy the condos built 5 years ago.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:36 AM
 
137 posts, read 227,296 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Definitely the same in Chicago in the loop, the good thing is, the shadows make it cooler in the summer instead of the sun beating down on you.
Yea I need my sunlight. I think living in NYC actually affected my mood over time. I was craving space. I was on a project in Charlotte at the time and sometimes would stay the weekend out there just so I didn't have to be back in NY. I think I'm just more of the outdoors type.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 11:41 AM
 
1,899 posts, read 2,167,668 times
Reputation: 1845
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Many of the south loop properties are partially vacant, still looking for people to buy the condos built 5 years ago.

"The inventory of unsold downtown condo units has plunged to 617 condos, compared with nearly 5,200 units on the market during the third quarter of 2004, Cross says. "

Crain's Chicago Business : Subscription Center
 
Old 08-16-2013, 12:01 PM
 
1,290 posts, read 1,502,298 times
Reputation: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
How about my point that the existence of surface lots in and around central Chicago are a result of speculative demand for their future value? There is no chance anything less than a mid-rise would go up on any of them, yet you post their pics as some proof of Chicago's lack of urbanity....when in fact it is proof that Chicgoans are betting big on future densification of the city's core.
My issue is much of the new construction going up in Chicago is complete architectural crap.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Broward County Florida
555 posts, read 467,778 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
How about my point that the existence of surface lots in and around central Chicago are a result of speculative demand for their future value? There is no chance anything less than a mid-rise would go up on any of them, yet you post their pics as some proof of Chicago's lack of urbanity....when in fact it is proof that Chicgoans are betting big on future densification of the city's core.

Yeah. The the same applies to most of Iowa. Those sneaky farmers simply sit on their properties speculating how much this land will be worth once Chicago grows by some 50M people......
 
Old 08-16-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Broward County Florida
555 posts, read 467,778 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Taken the logical conclusion, all the surface lots of Houston, or even more so, Tulsa, is proof the residents are betting on future densification.

It's a noticeable difference. New York City has very little of those breaks. Ditto with London, which has none. It's certainly urban, but the extra gaps make Chicago feel like a very different city, and odd for someone used to the previous two cities. It also means Chicago is less of a finished city. It has the potential to change its streetscape more, and due to new infall and smaller older buildings get a varied appearance. Post-infill, spots in River North or the West Loop would look dramatically different that Soho Manhattan view, with a mix of new high rises and old rather short buildings.
True. Nobody said Chicago isn't urban but its urbanity is not as dense, not as intense as urbanity of New York, London or other top world cities. Its not as developed as those cities. That's why when compared to New York it may actually disappoint. That's all.
 
Old 08-16-2013, 02:18 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,761,585 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
"The inventory of unsold downtown condo units has plunged to 617 condos, compared with nearly 5,200 units on the market during the third quarter of 2004, Cross says. "

Crain's Chicago Business : Subscription Center
Umm... You realize the article supports like everything I said, and goes against everything you have said right?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...20130816011834
Crain's
look at this image of dwindling condo developments...

"While the ingredients are there for someone to launch a major project, the fragile recovery isn't likely to support a second or third tower right away."

This means they are just trying to find a way to build a singular building!

"Amid a slow recovery, most developers were content with low-rise projects of no more than a few dozen units."

Look how dismal sales and units have been since then. Of course units are getting lower... b/c they haven't really built anything else in 5 years and still skeptical to build more

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...20130816011834
Crain's
Yes... gaining steam, b/c it basically hit complete rock bottom and people lost their investments. Also realize a lot of those units were bought for investment purposes yet remain vacant or went into foreclosures. That doesn't mean people are living in them. That just means the development companies were able to sell off their initial units so the money is in somebody elses hands.

Look at all these foreclosed properties and the year in which the buildings were built.
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale...37_rect/12_zm/

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10...01222251_zpid/

look at this just an example built in 2008, this is just a current foreclosure snapshot of the area, not a 5 year total foreclosure. look at the graph just below chicago condo prices continue to go down.

midwest1 would have you believe scrooge mcduck and investment co is sitting on all these parking lots ready to make fortunes though.

Last edited by JMT; 08-16-2013 at 07:38 PM..
 
Old 08-16-2013, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,561,310 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
It added 14k in a decade, not really an explosion, it's fastest growing b/c it previously was only 15k people in 2000 census, and things have changed since 2008. Most of that population is in the south loop towards michigan avenue or near east side east of michigan avenue, not the financial district. Most of the growth happened between 2004-2009. Many of the south loop properties are partially vacant, still looking for people to buy the condos built 5 years ago.
I was going to say, I think Los Angeles' downtown had a higher growth rate (though from a much lower starting point).
 
Old 08-16-2013, 03:19 PM
 
2,426 posts, read 3,459,765 times
Reputation: 1442
Quote:
Originally Posted by flotard View Post
True. Nobody said Chicago isn't urban but its urbanity is not as dense, not as intense as urbanity of New York, London or other top world cities. Its not as developed as those cities. That's why when compared to New York it may actually disappoint. That's all.
Wow a respectful post. Usually you state that Chicago is a bland city with bland people. Glad you are dropping the tude.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top