This is NOT a stagnant city (Chicago, Time: landscaping, neighborhoods, statistics)

[Chicago60614]

NOLA - what happened to you in Chicago or what did someone from Chicago do to you to make you dump on the city anywhere and everywhere on this website? Just curious. You seem to pop up in every thread about Chicago to try and shove the city down and make sure no one is getting away with saying something positive about the city.

You'll throw a mild props in for the city to seem unbiased, then then go right back to the slow grind against the place that you've been doing for weeks now.

[midwest1]

Here is a nice article about the development boom sweeping along Milwaukee Avenue.

Mapping the Development Boom Along Milwaukee Avenue - Curbed Maps - Curbed Chicago

And Nola, as always....if you read the article, make sure you have your Chicago voodoo doll handy.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by midwest1

Here is a nice article about the development boom sweeping along Milwaukee Avenue.

Mapping the Development Boom Along Milwaukee Avenue - Curbed Maps - Curbed Chicago

And Nola, as always....if you read the article, make sure you have your Chicago voodoo doll handy.

[sarcasm] Well it's not the same as in New York or San Francisco because Chicago is going to be the next Detroit. [/sarcasm]

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Then please post links to them. I keep up with proposed development through a consulting job I have (in NYC, Chicago, London, and DC) and I don't see dozens going up at all. There are about half a dozen that are under construction or about to start construction in NYC right now, but in no way are there multiple dozens.

Well you either didn't read my posts, or you're just making up stuff. I never wrote any of this.

I wrote that that there are dozens of supertalls in development in NYC, which is true.

I also wrote that there was no other city on earth with such construction activity, which is also true.

I then wrote that there were six supertalls currently u/c, in NYC which is also true.

There are six more supertalls with current excavation/foundation activity, BTW. Two of the six supertalls u/c are wrapping up, and all six supertalls not u/c but with excavation/foundation activity are within months of construction status, so there should probably be around ten supertalls u/c in early 2015, with dozens more planned, approved, or announced.

So in other words, you have NYC building tall all over the place, and Chicago building basically nothing tall. In the past, this was never the case, and Chicago was always one of the most robust cities on the planet in terms of skyscraper construction. That isn't true anymore.

Chicago was traditionally probably #3 in the world in highrise construction activity, behind only NYC and HK. Now it isn't even #3 in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Attrill

How about using the standard metrics that are used to define demand?

No, office vacancy rates have nothing to do with relative residential demand.

But if you want to use this weird metric, Chicago has much higher office vacancy rates, and much lower rents, than other major U.S. cities. NYC, SF, DC, LA, Seattle, Boston all have more valuable office markets, and this wasn't true in the past, when Chicago tended to have some of the most expensive commercial real estate in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Attrill

The best way to judge residential demand is to simply look at increases in average rents.

That would be basically the worst way to judge residential demand, since 70% of American households don't rent. Why would you judge residential demand by looking at 30% of the residential market?

In any case, if you want to look at residential rents, Chicago has lower rents and higher vacancy rates than basically all the other major U.S. cities. And obviously you look to the Census to see rents and vacancy rates, not some online blog that doesn't even show relative rates.

Originally Posted by Attrill

Anyways, that is how you look at the health of a development market, and Chicago is beating the national average on basically all counts.

You didn't mention one factor where Chicago was even matching national averages for big cities. The fact is that Chicago is a relative laggard, and this thread basically proves it.

[midwest1]

Seriously Nola...what is your obsession with Chicago. You really have a limited grasp on its history...and it's future. Like most cities, Chicago has had its ups and downs....in the 80's the metro barely grew, than bam it added 1,000,000 people in the 90's. It's currently in a slow growth mode...which is fine by me. There is simply no city in the entire country that is adding civic and open space improvements as kis Chicago. the city is transforming and you seem obsessed with number crunching how many skyscrapers are rising. Do you have any concept of the possibility that a city can be rapidly improving without rapid population and skyscraper growth. I have friends in Toronto who feel the cityscape is getting worse due to the condo boom there. Meanwhile Chiago is building tons of mid-rise structures surrounding downtown that are bringing increased vitality to the city. Which city is getting BETTER, NICER, more ATTRACTIVE?


another thing you seem to be missing is other Chicao's current trajectory which is, as we speak, rapidly changing after a brutal recession. Your take on Chicago is either based on some personal animus or is 3-5 years out of date.

[steeps]

Again NOLA??? Every one else is wrong?? As for DOZENS OF SUPER TALLS PLANNED FOR NYC? If this is THE NORM? It shows most never get built? Many in our cities planned, don't make it to, or past permit stage?
BY THE WAY ...NOLA.. YOU WERE ASKED FOR SOME DOCUMENTATION OF DOZENS??

DID CHICAGO HURT YOU BAD IN LIFE ? TO ALWAYS DISS IT? OR ANYONE ON ITS SIDE?

[midwest1]

And you claim Chicago has "higer vacancy rates than basically all other major US cities"

Wher do you get this crap.

Here are some recent rental vacancy rates, 3rd quarter 2014

Austin 13%

Chicago 9%

Indianapolis. 12.7%

Jacksonville. 10.9%

Las Vegas 10.8%

Memphis 19.4%

Orlando 12.5%

Phoenix 10.5%

St. Louis 12.9%

Salt Lake City 10.6%

Philadelphia 9.2%

[midwest1]

And again trajectory...in terms of vacant homes...Chicago is seeing rapid decreases in vacancy this year.

first quarter was. 3.6, second was 2.6, and the most recent third was 1.9.

Compare that to Atlanta. 1.8, 2.9, and 3.2
Or Dallas 1.1, 1.8, 2.1
Portland 0.8, 1.2, 1.6
Or DC 1.0, 1.0, 1.5

http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/da...5_2014_hvr.xls

[edsg25]

nola, you are so right about chicago. the city's a loser. the poster child for urban decay. you should take your talents, your spot on and insightful observations, your brilliant critique to the subforums of all the successful cities out there (you know, the ones that really matter) and give chicago the lack of attention that it truly deserves.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by edsg25

nola, you are so right about chicago. the city's a loser. the poster child for urban decay. you should take your talents, your spot on and insightful observations, your brilliant critique to the subforums of all the successful cities out there (you know, the ones that really matter) and give chicago the lack of attention that it truly deserves.

And here we have yet more nonsense strawman arguments...

Sorry edsg, but no. Saying "Chicago, comparatively, is building somewhat less than other prime U.S. cities" is not the same as saying "the city's a loser, the poster child for urban decay".

In fact, I have written, many times, that, no, the city was not stagnant in an absolute sense, but only in a relative sense. And the data confirm this is true.

If you can't get this, you're beyond hope.

I'm sure you'll respond with "Why do you hate Chicago, and why does the U.S. Census bureau hate Chicago, and why do developers hate Chicago, and why does no one listen to my anecdotal, boosterish nonsense instead of actual data?"