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.
I am not sure about Philly but I've always laughed at the idea that Chicago is affordable. Some of the most decadent and dangerous neighborhoods in the country which happen to be in Chicago are indeed quite affordable. But the small wedge of the city that most white collar workers live in? It's honestly not that affordable. I live on the north side and am white well-educated, etc. and my overall cost of living is not meaningfully different than it was when I lived in Denver or South Florida. The reason Chicago is losing population is precisely that it's not really affordable in the areas that people actually want to live and the areas that people can afford to live are rife with violence, segregation, etc. That's just not as true of the cities that people leaving Chicago for (Denver, Tampa, Charlotte, Dallas, etc.).
Chicago is in a tough place because it obviously needs gentrification in much of the city but that will only serve to make the area even less affordable--and Chicago offers very little to middle class newcomers outside of its affordability. Why would you pay Brroklyn prices to live in Chicago? The weather is polar, the taxes are surreal, wages are eh, and the crime is horrendous. The people who do actually move here do so because it offers a big urban experience at less cost than New York, but the more it gentrifies the fewer people will he attracted to live here. Chicago will he left batting cities like DC, Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc. for wealthier white transplants and honestly without significantly cheaper cost of living Chicago will lose most of those battles.
I am not sure about Philly but I've always laughed at the idea that Chicago is affordable. Some of the most decadent and dangerous neighborhoods in the country which happen to be in Chicago are indeed quite affordable. But the small wedge of the city that most white collar workers live in? It's honestly not that affordable. I live on the north side and am white well-educated, etc. and my overall cost of living is not meaningfully different than it was when I lived in Denver or South Florida. The reason Chicago is losing population is precisely that it's not really affordable in the areas that people actually want to live and the areas that people can afford to live are rife with violence, segregation, etc. That's just not as true of the cities that people leaving Chicago for (Denver, Tampa, Charlotte, Dallas, etc.).
Chicago is in a tough place because it obviously needs gentrification in much of the city but that will only serve to make the area even less affordable--and Chicago offers very little to middle class newcomers outside of its affordability. Why would you pay Brroklyn prices to live in Chicago? The weather is polar, the taxes are surreal, wages are eh, and the crime is horrendous. The people who do actually move here do so because it offers a big urban experience at less cost than New York, but the more it gentrifies the fewer people will he attracted to live here. Chicago will he left batting cities like DC, Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc. for wealthier white transplants and honestly without significantly cheaper cost of living Chicago will lose most of those battles.
This just isn’t true if you look at population trends. Chicago is gaining the most residents precisely in its most expensive neighborhoods (enough for it to have qualified as the fastest growing US downtown). One might argue that that’s a very big part of why they’re expensive to begin with.
With regard to increased housing costs - almost every major city around the country is seeing home prices exceed pre-pandemic levels. That’s hardly unique to Chicago. Besides, Chicagoland regularly ranks at the bottom of metros in annual price appreciation. The gap between New York, Boston, SF etc. and Chicago is actually growing because Chicago home values are at a lower base, and they do not grow as quickly on a percentage basis.
The differences in white-collar workforce and educational attainment at the metro level are not dramatically different between these latter two areas and the former grouping, although certainly there's an "edge" in the Bay Area, DC, Boston and Seattle in that regard.
The price disparity stems from four major factors: 1) population growth, 2) developable land/housing scarcity, 3) niche growth in the tech industry (which is much more segmented than the "white-collar" terminology you've used, which is a massive sector covering hundreds of types of jobs), and 4) deep-pocketed (often overseas-based) real estate entities buying up huge inventories of otherwise affordable housing.
Philadelphia and Chicago were simply slower growing metro areas over the past 20 years (although there are some clear signs that's shifting quickly post-pandemic, perhaps significantly so in Philadelphia's and Chicago's favor). Obviously that slower growth doesn't put the same upward pressure on housing prices as the faster-growing cities.
You're also looking at notably less DEVELOPABLE land scarcity in the Philadelphia and Chicago areas. The barrier to entry for housing developers, while not exactly easy on a national scale, is still notably lower in these two areas compared to NIMBY-hotbeds of the Bay Area and Boston (Seattle is likely more limited based on sheer geography, and the DC area has honestly become over-developed).
Point being, Chicago and Philly have plenty of existing and growing white collar demand, but their real estate dynamics are better able to absorb this demand than the other markets, because they face a number of other unique external forces pushing up prices.
Agree, tl;dr is that supply is what sets Chicago and Philly apart, not demand.
I am not sure about Philly but I've always laughed at the idea that Chicago is affordable. Some of the most decadent and dangerous neighborhoods in the country which happen to be in Chicago are indeed quite affordable. But the small wedge of the city that most white collar workers live in? It's honestly not that affordable. I live on the north side and am white well-educated, etc. and my overall cost of living is not meaningfully different than it was when I lived in Denver or South Florida. The reason Chicago is losing population is precisely that it's not really affordable in the areas that people actually want to live and the areas that people can afford to live are rife with violence, segregation, etc. That's just not as true of the cities that people leaving Chicago for (Denver, Tampa, Charlotte, Dallas, etc.).
Chicago is in a tough place because it obviously needs gentrification in much of the city but that will only serve to make the area even less affordable--and Chicago offers very little to middle class newcomers outside of its affordability. Why would you pay Brroklyn prices to live in Chicago? The weather is polar, the taxes are surreal, wages are eh, and the crime is horrendous. The people who do actually move here do so because it offers a big urban experience at less cost than New York, but the more it gentrifies the fewer people will he attracted to live here. Chicago will he left batting cities like DC, Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc. for wealthier white transplants and honestly without significantly cheaper cost of living Chicago will lose most of those battles.
I do think it’s under appreciated that the “sketchy” are “bad” areas in the NY, Boston areas like Revere or Hyde Park would absolutely be considered nice neighborhoods in Philly or Chicago. Like the Near North Side had 7 Homicides Last year, Hyde Park (Chicago) had 6.
People crap on Revere for being a run down trashy town and it had 0. While not the whole reason the place is more expensive it sure is part of it. The fact maybe the 52nd percentile is acceptable as the median house in an area where middle class professionals would consider while in Chicago it might be like the 60th percentile.
Also Cook County had 2x the property tax so a 300,000 house in Cook County has the same taxes owed as a $650,000 one in Boston.
The differences in white-collar workforce and educational attainment at the metro level are not dramatically different between these latter two areas and the former grouping, although certainly there's an "edge" in the Bay Area, DC, Boston and Seattle in that regard.
The price disparity stems from four major factors: 1) population growth, 2) developable land/housing scarcity, 3) niche growth in the tech industry (which is much more segmented than the "white-collar" terminology you've used, which is a massive sector covering hundreds of types of jobs), and 4) deep-pocketed (often overseas-based) real estate entities buying up huge inventories of otherwise affordable housing.
Philadelphia and Chicago were simply slower growing metro areas over the past 20 years (although there are some clear signs that's shifting quickly post-pandemic, perhaps significantly so in Philadelphia's and Chicago's favor). Obviously that slower growth doesn't put the same upward pressure on housing prices as the faster-growing cities.
You're also looking at notably less DEVELOPABLE land scarcity in the Philadelphia and Chicago areas. The barrier to entry for housing developers, while not exactly easy on a national scale, is still notably lower in these two areas compared to NIMBY-hotbeds of the Bay Area and Boston (Seattle is likely more limited based on sheer geography, and the DC area has honestly become over-developed).
Point being, Chicago and Philly have plenty of existing and growing white collar demand, but their real estate dynamics are better able to absorb this demand than the other markets, because they face a number of other unique external forces pushing up prices.
Nonsense. The labor force in metro Boston is the most educated in the country. Metro Philly isn’t remotely close. The proportion of 5%er households in metro Boston is much higher than metro Philly. It creates an enormous amount of economic competition for the most desirable housing. The same is true for the Bay Area, DC, and Seattle. Philadelphia ranks 31 for educational attainment among MSAs.
Nonsense. The labor force in metro Boston is the most educated in the country. Metro Philly isn’t remotely close.
Incorrect. Based on 2020 ACS Census numbers, that title belongs to the DC metro (52% BA+ versus 49% BA+ in the Boston area).
Philadelphia metro's 39% BA+ is certainly lower, but in what amounts to a 1-in-10 person difference in Bachelor's Degree holders overall doesn't obviously explain the huge difference in housing prices to the extent that you're alluding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
The proportion of 5%er households in metro Boston is much higher than metro Philly. It creates an enormous amount of economic competition for the most desirable housing. The same is true for the Bay Area, DC, and Seattle. Philadelphia ranks 31 for educational attainment among MSAs.
I have no idea where you're getting these numbers, but personal income numbers are even closer in these areas as compared to Chicago and Philadelphia.
Also, as we should all well know, what constitutes the REAL "top 5%" in a place like Boston, SF, Seattle and DC, is not the same as a place like Philadelphia or Chicago, so comparisons of absolute income levels are effectively meaningless.
Incorrect. Based on 2020 ACS Census numbers, that title belongs to the DC metro (52% BA+ versus 49% BA+ in the Boston area).
Philadelphia metro's 39% BA+ is certainly lower, but in what amounts to a 1-in-10 person difference in Bachelor's Degree holders overall doesn't obviously explain the huge difference in housing prices to the extent that you're alluding.
I have no idea where you're getting these numbers, but personal income numbers are even closer in these areas as compared to Chicago and Philadelphia.
Also, as we should all well know, what constitutes the REAL "top 5%" in a place like Boston, SF, Seattle and DC, is not the same as a place like Philadelphia or Chicago, so comparisons of absolute income levels are effectively meaningless.
So Boston seems ~on par with Philly and way richer than Chicago
Where are you getting your Philly & Chicago numbers from?
Going by the same source and time for each - Boston is $94K and Chicago & Philly MSA are virtually identical at $75K. It’s a gap of 25%, not 40-50% as your numbers imply:
Where are you getting your Philly & Chicago numbers from?
Going by the same source and time for each - Boston is $94K and Chicago & Philly MSA are virtually identical at $75K. It’s a gap of 25%, not 40-50% as your numbers imply:
I guess it was metro divisions. Not metro areas. But regardless $95 vs $75 still puts Boston smack in the middle according to his COL adjustments. Someone making $150k in Chicago likely makes ~190k in Boston. If they’re proportionally wealthy. So the COL difference is minor.
In fact according to nerdwallet, someone making $74,000 in Chicago is equal to $91,000 in Boston in Philly $74,000 equals $99,000.
Taking into account swaths of neighborhoods much worse in Chicago or Philly than anywhere in Boston a decent working class or middle class neighborhood is pretty much the same cost burden or maybe even cheaper in Boston
Taking into account swaths of neighborhoods much worse in Chicago or Philly than anywhere in Boston a decent working class or middle class neighborhood is pretty much the same cost burden or maybe even cheaper in Boston
This gets old especially as all of Boston Proper alone.... Fits into just Chicago's North side.... Chicago and Philadelphia still have good middle-class neighborhoods
Boston proper with like (48 sq miles) of land by only removing the miles over water. SO THAT IS MERELY (1/5 the size of Chicago).
*** Perhaps many of you will be able to read the full link below just out from "Crain's Chicago Business".... I cannot as I have reached my free view limits.
April 07, 2022
Title: Even with fast-rising prices, homes more affordable in most of Chicago area.
All I can read ...
- Two separate reports show that it's easier to afford a home now than it has been historically, although with interest rates going up that could change quickly.
- Despite a rapid run-up in prices in 2021that has shrink affordability across the country, homes in much of the "CHICAGO AREA ARE - EASIER TO AFFORD" than they have been historically.
ALL I DID WITH the below REDFIN REAL ESTATE - was punch in Chicago's Northwest side I lived.... though it actually does not include the farthest Northwest parts from Jefferson Park thru Norwood Park and Edison Park areas.... not sure why as I did live there. Anyway these neighborhoods are areas that are just outside of Gentrifying Logan Square as areas west of there primarily.
These areas are not seen as bad or declined. STANDARD CHICAGO STYLES OF HOMES from mostly the 1920s thru 1950s built neighborhoods. Some can be early 60s.
- YOU WILL NOT FIND ROW-HOMES on the Northwest side FILTER ON FOR JUST HOUSES OR TOWNHOMES
- 150 homes for sale came up in this region. Few will have any HOA....
*** REDFIN Homes/Townhouse for sale NOW.... On Chicago's Northwest side minus its further North Northwest neighborhoods where I lived. Redfin must list them separately?
Link as many in the $400,000 thru $500,000 price range, some in the $200,000 to $300.000 with many still under $400,000. THESE ARE NOT HOODS. Most SOLID homes some fully renovated to open floor plans some not. Some may have lower taxes if one owner for a long time and some more currently higher if fully renovated.
I will take the Ginger(bread) Tudor here..... Nice area Nice home... always had a fondness for the Gingerbreads. Not a ton of them in Chicago, but you will find them among the bungalows and some whole blocks of them.
This one looks totally move-in complete condition. Full finished basement. Just they do have that short 2nd floor where the roof slopes. Yard is good size just not landscaped. 2.5 car garage and still parking for 3.5 cars. NOT BAD for the PRICE.... built 1940.
3041 N Nordica Ave, Chicago, IL 60634 - 4 beds/3 baths. Full finished basement and 1800 sq. ft. 1st and 2nd fl. Good Size City Yard and 2.5 car garage in the alley+. Standard Chicago front lawn.
$415,000
So what do you think of this GINGERBREAD? What if it was in Boston.
Chicago and the Chicagoland area as a whole are significantly bigger than the Boston area.
- Chicago has a more sophisticated food scene as well as better architecture.
- Chicago has very unique, diverse, and well-defined neighborhoods whereas Boston’s neighborhoods can blend together sometimes.
- You factor in living expenses, Chicago wins.
- Boston is a more expensive city than Chicago but same opportunity for employment.
- It is better to live in Chicago than Boston when you factor in the expenses and things to do.
- It is way cheaper in Chicago than Boston, yet you get plenty of opportunities to work and earn.
- Boston is 89 square miles. But the city’s land area is just (48 square miles), which is about "one-fifth the size of Chicago".
- Chicago averages 35.1 inches of snow per year. Boston averages 48.1 inches of snow per year.
- The cost of living in Boston, MA is 31.3% higher than in Chicago, IL. You would have to earn a salary of $78,796 to maintain your current standard of living.
- Employers in Boston typically pay 6.2% more than employers in Chicago.
What is the bad part of Boston?
Charlestown
For Charlestown, Boston crime, the majority of the crime is shootings and drug dealing, especially at the eastern end. This makes it one of the bad neighborhoods in Boston. Property crime, though better than other neighborhoods, still stands out at 1,632 for every 100,000 residents.
- Boston sees 655 violent crimes per 100,000, making the city less safe than 83% of US cities.
- The violent crime rate in Boston is nearly double the national violent crime rate.
- People in Boston have a 1 out of 153 chance of becoming a victim of crime, compared to a 1 in 296 in the state of Massachusetts.
In the media one will hears just waaaay more on Chicago over homicides then a Boston even gets. True far less homicides in Boston. OTHER CRIME well .... still show plenty of all other crime not homicides. True a much smaller city more fully gentrified does help overall crime, but raises cost.
Most locals know there are plenty of areas they can go on weekends to play. Wisconsin is big on their radar and if one adds a hour longer to get there.... it is not a deal breaker.
For a shoreline more as New England.... one may have to go further North on the Great Lakes where rocky coastal areas are reminiscent to the New England Coast including Northern Michigan with quaint towns and light houses. Quaint smaller resort touristy towns thru the Midwest also. Coastal Lake Michigan Chicago sits on is public parks harbors and beaches. Great asset in its own right.
* * This video by a Foreign born Real Estate sales person FROM BOSTON.
She put out this video a couple months ago. I used it as the newest I found. Seems pretty fair and not many views and a few replies will lessen Chi. The video maker did not make the video to rip any city and does not use her real estate links in it.
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.
Chicago and Philadelphia still have good middle-class neighborhoods 
I cannot as I have reached my free view limits.
