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.
Thanks! What do you think the timeline for build out of this whole area will be? I think D.C. will reach build out of the core by 2030 adding about 165,000 people to the core 17 sq. mile's by then through new development. After that, only redevelopment will be possible versus green field development.
I'm sure the entire area wouldn't be built out - I mean we're talking almost 20 square miles that encompass extremely varied areas, many that just don't have any critical mass to really get redeveloped, like the areas near Ashland and 31st or the areas south of I-55 down to 31st street.
This assuming your boundries of Belmont to 31st Street and over to Ashland. That area had around 350,000 residents in 2010, an increase of around 12% over 2000's numbers. The core highrise areas had around 130,000 people in 2010, an increase of around 1/3 over 2000's numbers. The Loop grew by 79% and the South Loop by 125%.
The central downtown area and points to the north and northwest in the city are the real only shining spots in the metro at the moment. The amount of housing going up along Milwaukee northwest of downtown up through maybe Diversey is crazy. I was there this weekend at a friend's new condo and it's just construction all around the new 606 trail and up through Milwaukee Ave as well. Downtown hit new employment highs last year of around 600,000 people. Amount of retail, number of visitors, number of students, number of hotel rooms, etc are all at all-time highs for the downtown area. The L trains hit their low point for weekday ridership in the early 1990's at around 450,000 rides per day. It's been an upward trend every since, peaking this year at 850,000 for the last report I saw.
Even the city as a whole is outshining the suburbs as a whole, although different sections of the city are pulling and dragging at their own rates. The number of people employed within the city limits is at a high not seen since before the bust in 2000. I believe the suburbs are quite a bit below their peaks.
The hidden issue, because Chicago is such a large % of Illinois, is just how awful downstate is doing. It's around 25% of the population, and it's economy is extremely weak.
Since 2010 Chicago has gained back around 389,000 of the jobs it lost, or around 95%. The rest of the state has only gained back around 28,000 of the jobs it lost - or around 16%.
The employment pool in Chicago is up around 50,000 people since the bottom, and downstate Illinois has shed another 430,000 since the bottom.
I'm sure the entire area wouldn't be built out - I mean we're talking almost 20 square miles that encompass extremely varied areas, many that just don't have any critical mass to really get redeveloped, like the areas near Ashland and 31st or the areas south of I-55 down to 31st street.
This assuming your boundries of Belmont to 31st Street and over to Ashland. That area had around 350,000 residents in 2010, an increase of around 12% over 2000's numbers. The core highrise areas had around 130,000 people in 2010, an increase of around 1/3 over 2000's numbers. The Loop grew by 79% and the South Loop by 125%.
The central downtown area and points to the north and northwest in the city are the real only shining spots in the metro at the moment. The amount of housing going up along Milwaukee northwest of downtown up through maybe Diversey is crazy. I was there this weekend at a friend's new condo and it's just construction all around the new 606 trail and up through Milwaukee Ave as well. Downtown hit new employment highs last year of around 600,000 people. Amount of retail, number of visitors, number of students, number of hotel rooms, etc are all at all-time highs for the downtown area. The L trains hit their low point for weekday ridership in the early 1990's at around 450,000 rides per day. It's been an upward trend every since, peaking this year at 850,000 for the last report I saw.
Even the city as a whole is outshining the suburbs as a whole, although different sections of the city are pulling and dragging at their own rates. The number of people employed within the city limits is at a high not seen since before the bust in 2000. I believe the suburbs are quite a bit below their peaks.
The hidden issue, because Chicago is such a large % of Illinois, is just how awful downstate is doing. It's around 25% of the population, and it's economy is extremely weak.
Since 2010 Chicago has gained back around 389,000 of the jobs it lost, or around 95%. The rest of the state has only gained back around 28,000 of the jobs it lost - or around 16%.
The employment pool in Chicago is up around 50,000 people since the bottom, and downstate Illinois has shed another 430,000 since the bottom.
Well that's good that the city is doing so well. The suburbs in many area's have slowed down and many aren't doing so well at all compared to their city proper's.
Building really tall buildings is a catch 22 because they provide a lot of population density, but do little to change the feel on the ground and redevelop the neighborhood as a whole by themselves at a fast pace. This is because the demand is eaten up in the sky versus spread outward. One 60 story building could provide 6 different buildings at a height of ten stories each which would change the neighborhood feel much faster. Ultimately, it would be better to build the 60 story building for density and eventually you would have 6 of those buildings, however, that will take much longer.
DC's core is certainly more cohesively built than Chicago's core. It is pretty solidly built mass of 10-story office buildings and leafy row house neighborhoods, with some taller apartments mixed in.
But, overall, I would say Chicago's core is far more active than DC' core when it comes to total mixed used activity. In the short term, Chicago's parking lots and suburban strip malls are blights on the urban core. But, over the long term that will allow Chicago to continue to develop a dense mixed use core with cohesive urban energy. DC will just never really have an answer for Chicago's near north side (which in my opinion is rivaled only by inner-SF for the most active mixed-use urban zone in the country outside NYC).
Boston has Marblehead, Gloucester, Rockport and epic Plum Island (sometimes all-time surf) just a few minutes away,
One more reason the Fenway is $2800/mo for a one bedroom...
EDIT; pardon, i posted this on wrong thread (via micro device at DFW). on topic,
As long as the Rhino/Dem.gov keeps their stranglehold on the nation... DC is gonna grow.
Last edited by odurandina; 01-04-2016 at 05:08 PM..
Well that's good that the city is doing so well. The suburbs in many area's have slowed down and many aren't doing so well at all compared to their city proper's.
Building really tall buildings is a catch 22 because they provide a lot of population density, but do little to change the feel on the ground and redevelop the neighborhood as a whole by themselves at a fast pace. This is because the demand is eaten up in the sky versus spread outward. One 60 story building could provide 6 different buildings at a height of ten stories each which would change the neighborhood feel much faster. Ultimately, it would be better to build the 60 story building for density and eventually you would have 6 of those buildings, however, that will take much longer.
Well it's not all highrise construction. Virtually all the growth in the west loop and all up Milwaukee as well as the north side has been from 3-12 story buildings. Downtown has built around 160 buildings over 18 stories tall since the year 2000. They might not eat up a ton of ground space, but 160 highrises (and many many more under 18 stories) has greatly changed the feel and vitality of the central and north/northwest areas of the city over the past 15 years.
Now it's just a matter of the west and south sides that are still stuck for the most part.
Residential Building Permits Issued - City of Chicago:
5+ Buildings have really been driving almost all the growth since the recession. Not looking to slow down in 2016, although more of those buildings are starting to be mid-rises in the neighborhoods as opposed to around 2011 to 2013 when it was almost all highrise construction downtown.
Well it's not all highrise construction. Virtually all the growth in the west loop and all up Milwaukee as well as the north side has been from 3-12 story buildings. Downtown has built around 160 buildings over 18 stories tall since the year 2000. They might not eat up a ton of ground space, but 160 highrises (and many many more under 18 stories) has greatly changed the feel and vitality of the central and north/northwest areas of the city over the past 15 years.
Now it's just a matter of the west and south sides that are still stuck for the most part.
Residential Building Permits Issued - City of Chicago:
5+ Buildings have really been driving almost all the growth since the recession. Not looking to slow down in 2016, although more of those buildings are starting to be mid-rises in the neighborhoods as opposed to around 2011 to 2013 when it was almost all highrise construction downtown.
That's really great. Those mid-rise buildings will make a much greater impact.
I don't know if this is really a "versus" thing in itself, but it could spawn some good "versus" discussion. This is in millions of square feet of office space.
Midtown Manhattan - 200.2
Washington D.C. - 131.7
Chicago - 131.5
Toronto - 88.7
Downtown Manhattan - 87.3
San Francisco - 83.2
Midtown South Manhattan - 71.8
Boston - 59.2
Atlanta - 56.9
Seattle - 52.5
Montreal - 49.4
Philadelphia - 41.5
And just for laughs and giggles, since I've noticed there are a couple of big downtown San Jose boosters on this forum who shall go unnamed, let's look at downtown San Jose's office inventory:
San Jose - 7.5
Anyone know the source of these numbers who could post a link?
DC's core is certainly more cohesively built than Chicago's core. It is pretty solidly built mass of 10-story office buildings and leafy row house neighborhoods, with some taller apartments mixed in.
But, overall, I would say Chicago's core is far more active than DC' core when it comes to total mixed used activity. In the short term, Chicago's parking lots and suburban strip malls are blights on the urban core. But, over the long term that will allow Chicago to continue to develop a dense mixed use core with cohesive urban energy. DC will just never really have an answer for Chicago's near north side (which in my opinion is rivaled only by inner-SF for the most active mixed-use urban zone in the country outside NYC).
I definetly disagree with you saying DC will never have an answer for Chicago's near northside. The NOMA/Union Market/Northwest One/Mt. Vernon Triangle/Eckington area which is now a downtown sub-market or central DC sub market will be, without question, the most dense and active area in the entire DC area at full buildout and it won't be close.
The residential densities will surpass 80k people per sq. mile in some census tracts which is consistent with census tracts in some Manhattan neighborhoods. I don't think you're aware of the development pipeline in those areas based on your comments.
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.
What do you think the timeline for build out of this whole area will be? I think D.C. will reach build out of the core by 2030 adding about 165,000 people to the core 17 sq. mile's by then through new development. After that, only redevelopment will be possible versus green field development.
