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)
View Poll Results: Will Houston surpass Chicago as the 3rd largest city by 2020?
Yes 492 41.59%
No 691 58.41%
Voters: 1183. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2019, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,019,596 times
Reputation: 6805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
My post was in response to Chicago's "booming core"....It is a boom for the rich offset by the leaking poor and unemployed leaving the city. The map shows how traditional middle class neighborhoods or low income areas have been taken over by the wealthy while the poor has spread throughout the other areas leaving hardly any recognizable middle class which Chicago was always thriving with.

I don't know how good it is for the overall health of the city to become a place more for the highly educated with more gentrification. We are heading towards Indian level class disparity. I'll admit it's great for the redevelopment of the downtown and north side.
I did a lot of research on this 2 years ago for Chicago specifically for a study for CMAP. It is not just the north side - it also includes the south lake front going down to Hyde Park and even part of Woodlawn as well as areas like Bridgeport. The income levels aren't as fast rising there, but the education levels are. It's very apparent. Also the SW side closer to Midway have really increased quite a bit.

But here's the thing - most things happening is still considered middle class, but it's solidly middle to upper middle class. There's a lot of upper class that's moved into Chicago city-wise too, but a household making $150K per year in a city like Chicago is still not considered upper class. It's middle class still no matter what you or anyone thinks. What they should be saying is how the solidly middle class is being diminished and has been all over America for at least a few decades now. The upper middle class is actually expanding in many cities themselves.

I think a lot of people who think that say $150K household is "upper class" probably have never made that kind of money, and that's fine, but in no way even in Chicago is that upper class. While you can live a comfortable life for sure, in no way are you going to be buying a $1M+ property on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2019, 09:06 PM
 
617 posts, read 176,573 times
Reputation: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
The reason Houston has been attracting so many people is that it's cheap. Everyone knows the saying "you get what you pay for." There are reasons why the Sun Belt is so much cheaper than the rest of the country, but people just don't want to admit it. Houston is the epitome of Sun Belt. It never had the clout that Chicago had and never had its economy and status so of course they're difficult to compare.
Right, it's a common tactic here to emphasize the subjective over the technical, even when the latter contains much stronger factors.

Quote:
In the end, Chicago will still be the superior city, cold weather wimps aside. If Chicago didn't get so cold int the winter, I'd bet my life savings that it would be doing better than it is right now at attracting people to the region. Those with the ability to move easily and with enough education to be hired anywhere are choosing Chicago for a reason.
If I was omniscient, I'd show you all the infinite realities within the multiverse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2019, 09:22 PM
 
3,223 posts, read 1,555,479 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrappyJoe View Post
Right, it's a common tactic here to emphasize the subjective over the technical, even when the latter contains much stronger factors.

If I was omniscient, I'd show you all the infinite realities within the multiverse.
But you're not adding anything on Houston's crossing this benchmark in what changes for you?

Both these cities may as well be in differing dimensions that fail in one aspect and excel in another. But one evolved a uniqueness that only maturity, planning and stricter limits in what it desired to be.

The other has a get it built as we need it now ... over lets plan better and then proceed.
What's in it for Houston is what we want to know? For Chicago it's in the defense here .....
- does downtown Houston become #3
- does infrastructure best Chicago's given Houston's arrival and much newer booming era then Chicago's (though Chicago's core is in a boom stage has could saw as it does come in cycles. This was a nice one for sure.
- does Houston gain international attention in this and WILL it make international Headlines? I do believe it did with LA passing it? But far lessor Toronto.

But then I had my night-cap wine ..... so not meant to offend.

Last edited by DavePa; 02-25-2019 at 09:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2019, 01:35 AM
 
164 posts, read 128,591 times
Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
Yes, that was the point of the post I made. There is basically only rich and poor anymore in Chicago. The middle class is almost non existent. It was the best model of a diverse blue collar, "affordable" city that is becoming more and more elitist. Eventually gentrification will stretch from the South Loop to Hyde Park resembling the miles of high-rises along the north shore. I could see rents in the neighborhoods like Wicker Park/ Logan Square/Bucktown going as high as the downtown in the not too distant future. The West Loop will probably become exclusively for the ultra rich.
I think you may be right I was in the West loop (Fulton market) and wow just wow the amount of developments under construction, right now it's boderline trendy hipster, but in the new future it could turn into Chicago version of something similar to SoHo, Chelsea neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2019, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Chicago metro
3,509 posts, read 7,316,049 times
Reputation: 2023
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
I did a lot of research on this 2 years ago for Chicago specifically for a study for CMAP. It is not just the north side - it also includes the south lake front going down to Hyde Park and even part of Woodlawn as well as areas like Bridgeport. The income levels aren't as fast rising there, but the education levels are. It's very apparent. Also the SW side closer to Midway have really increased quite a bit.

But here's the thing - most things happening is still considered middle class, but it's solidly middle to upper middle class. There's a lot of upper class that's moved into Chicago city-wise too, but a household making $150K per year in a city like Chicago is still not considered upper class. It's middle class still no matter what you or anyone thinks. What they should be saying is how the solidly middle class is being diminished and has been all over America for at least a few decades now. The upper middle class is actually expanding in many cities themselves.

I think a lot of people who think that say $150K household is "upper class" probably have never made that kind of money, and that's fine, but in no way even in Chicago is that upper class. While you can live a comfortable life for sure, in no way are you going to be buying a $1M+ property on that.
But UIC researchers define middle class areas as having households with a per capita between 80 and 120 percent of the metro average, or between $28,712 and $43,068. The median household income for the metro is $68,403. If 150k still puts one in the middle class(and not upper class), then even some of the so called wealthy suburbs in the north and in Dupage, and none of the city's community areas(Gold Coast most likely has a median income above 150k, but not the Near Northside as a whole) fall in the threshold of middle class, in terms of median household income.

https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news...4-a717d4fb1b0b
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2019, 12:54 PM
 
870 posts, read 752,706 times
Reputation: 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
The reason Houston has been attracting so many people is that it's cheap. Everyone knows the saying "you get what you pay for." There are reasons why the Sun Belt is so much cheaper than the rest of the country, but people just don't want to admit it. Houston is the epitome of Sun Belt. It never had the clout that Chicago had and never had its economy and status so of course they're difficult to compare.
One of the least comfortable truths nobody wants to confront is that there is a massive social class gulf between the people who are part of the whole urban revival movement and who fetishize cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, et al. and the people moving to cities in the Sun Belt. A lot of Sun Belt growth is driven by low COL and a high number of relatively well paying so-called "low skill" jobs which have left the north because of prevailing pro-labor regulations. To a very real extent, prioritizing walkable neighborhoods with cool brunch places and public transit is a middle class pursuit whereas working class people are much more concerned with jobs and home ownership opportunities.

It costs almost nothing to live in Sun Belt cities. Average rents in Chicago are almost twice as high as in Houston, they are 50% higher in Philadelphia than Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2019, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,019,596 times
Reputation: 6805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426 View Post
But UIC researchers define middle class areas as having households with a per capita between 80 and 120 percent of the metro average, or between $28,712 and $43,068. The median household income for the metro is $68,403. If 150k still puts one in the middle class(and not upper class), then even some of the so called wealthy suburbs in the north and in Dupage, and none of the city's community areas(Gold Coast most likely has a median income above 150k, but not the Near Northside as a whole) fall in the threshold of middle class, in terms of median household income.

https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news...4-a717d4fb1b0b
Yes, by their own study is what you are talking about. I'm sorry, but if you are trying to say that something above the median is upper class, then that is complete BS. $80k is not upper class in Chicago or even close. A lot of the definition of middle class is vague that basically excludes the bottom 20% of earners and top 20% of earners. Something like $100,000 might be comfortable somewhere in Chicago, but calling it upper class is just plain laughable.

Numbers like that are used against a baseline of 1970 to represent what was considered middle class then and what a middle class salary was. In no way is middle class restrained to that upper bound today. It largely depends on where you live, and it's definitely higher for most places in the US Chicago and Houston included.

Last edited by marothisu; 02-26-2019 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2019, 01:48 PM
 
6,968 posts, read 14,097,897 times
Reputation: 4553
Quote:
Originally Posted by brodie734 View Post
One of the least comfortable truths nobody wants to confront is that there is a massive social class gulf between the people who are part of the whole urban revival movement and who fetishize cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, et al. and the people moving to cities in the Sun Belt. A lot of Sun Belt growth is driven by low COL and a high number of relatively well paying so-called "low skill" jobs which have left the north because of prevailing pro-labor regulations. To a very real extent, prioritizing walkable neighborhoods with cool brunch places and public transit is a middle class pursuit whereas working class people are much more concerned with jobs and home ownership opportunities.

It costs almost nothing to live in Sun Belt cities. Average rents in Chicago are almost twice as high as in Houston, they are 50% higher in Philadelphia than Phoenix.
This is true. And again, it's why I only support pro-labor candidates. Right to work laws should be illegal, because they are not "right to work," they are "right to be exploited for cheap labor" laws. If the Sun Belt had the same level of protections for workers and minorities, it would not be what it is today. If unions were just as strong in Houston as they are in Chicago, companies would not be moving there for cheaper labor. Northern cities like Chicago also protect minorities from workplace discrimination much better than any Sun Belt cities usually. Whether it be LGBT protections or maternity leave or something similar.

That's the point I'm making of the Sun Belt being cheaper only because the companies there don't value their employees as strongly as they do in cities like Chicago. This is equally a knock on American society entirely devaluing unions and minorities in the workplace and watching the Sun Belt capitalize on this as it is a knock on unregulated capitalism that has created a race to the bottom wherein companies attempt to pay their workers as little as possible to enrich their already CEO.

Give me higher rents and a higher value on human life any day. The Sun Belt can take its low rents, low value on human life, and bigger populations. Just please, for the sake of the world's clean air/water, could you stop with the exurban development and invest in public transit and urbanization a bit more so we can all survive on this planet a little bit longer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2019, 02:26 PM
 
3,223 posts, read 1,555,479 times
Reputation: 2353
A recent link on Chicago affordability.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n...ive-in-chicago

From link a couple comments
-rebuilt from fire ravaged downtown in 1871 and 4-sq/miles, Chicago can feel younger than East Coast cities like New York or Boston and Philly.
- there are more Poles and Americans of Polish descent in Chicago than in Warsaw.
- the Mexican-born immigrant population is the second-largest of any metropolitan area in the country,

According to the Census Bureau's most recent five-year estimate,

- median gross rent across the city (which includes utility and fuel costs) was around $1029 per month.
- the downtown-adjacent West Loop, where Millennials are said to make up 73 percent of residents, it’s tough to find a two-bedroom for anything less than $2400/month.
- Median household income in the West Loop is also more than $100,000, which may be what passes for "middle-class" around here.

It’s outside of downtown and downtown-adjacent neighborhoods where more affordable options can be found. But the struggle is real on the city’s North Side, where housing costs soar much higher.

- Chicago is still an affordable city to live in—at least for potential homeowners.
- there’s plenty of housing stock available at or around the median home price ($250,000); it just comes down to location, location, location.
- “Chicago bungalows, the historic rehabbed, HDTV-worthy homes, are triple the price in white neighborhoods,” 1/3 the city built 1910-1930 Some extend it to 1940 of 80,000 if them built and still standing proud.
- Newer bungalows mid-century then took over afterward thru the mid-60s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2019, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
3,502 posts, read 1,702,385 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronWright View Post
................................................[SIZE="5"]1970[/SIZE].................................................. ............................................[SIZE="5"]2017[/SIZE]

source: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news...aign=Web-Share


Here is a map of the super rich and super poor sprawl that has taken place in Chicago represented by dark blue. Notice how middle income (cream color) has been replaced by very low income (dark orange)
That’s a terrible map that people should stop quoting. The map is income per median metro income. So essentially what are the poorest places in the metro vs the richest places in the metro not actual poverty. Because the city center of Chicago went from 40% of Chicago in the city limits to 25% today the map looks terrible. Houston has gone from about 60% to 33% today as well and will look very similar to that map because at one point the majority or near majority lived in the city center/city limits. So of course their will be tons of middle class areas in the city since the metro and city is very synonymous in many cities across the country till about the 1980s when 30 years of suburbia had finally taken its toll on cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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