Wow, look what is happening in the "second tier" cities (Chicago: apartment, renting)

[UC18]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

Not really.

Yes, really.

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

St. Louis has indeed seen a dramatic increase in the number of college educated individuals, but these people have little to no reason to live within 3 miles of downtown St. Louis if jobs aren't located there. It's one of the most decentralized metros in the country when it comes to job location.

A lot of people who do work in the Loop, or near to it, have a reason to live fairly close to downtown, even if the metric isn't catching people in other neighborhoods who are in the right age range with a degree, but it especially doesn't work when looking at St. Louis because Chicago is far more centralized.

Exactly. So St. Louis has fewer college graduates living downtown than Chicago. That's what he was saying. That's what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. We all agree.

[reppin_the_847]

You kind of have to get out of the Chicago suburbs to feel it. A lot of the Chicago suburbs are way more expensive compared to most other comparable real estate options in the Midwest as well.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Cities across the Midwest are shrinking. There is really no reason to live let alone move to the Midwest unless you are staying/moving for a good job. The Midwest and it's cities were built on good manufacturing jobs that by and large don't exist anymore. Once you get outside the gentrified Chicago neighborhoods you can feel the population loss, let alone many other Midwestern cities.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by reppin_the_847

You kind of have to get out of the Chicago suburbs to feel it. A lot of the Chicago suburbs are way more expensive compared to most other comparable real estate options in the Midwest as well.

I'm not sure what you mean. The city of Chicago has lost more than a million residents since peak population. That is a fact. Without Hispanic immigration, IMO, large swatches of the city would look like Detroit lite, and even with it, you can simply tell walking through many neighborhoods that there is not enough people to fill the housing/retail that's been built up.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Attrill

It doesn't work for either city. In Chicago it barely gets Wicker Park, and misses Logan Square, Lakeview, Uptown, Rogers Park, Wrigleyville, Avondale, Humboldt Park, etc.

Right, plus the lake is probably 30% of the 3 mile radius.

[reppin_the_847]

Well I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Chicago & its suburbs have way more Hispanic immigrants than most of the other cities in the Midwest. Metro Detroit barely has any compared to here. They do have more folks from the Middle East than we do, but a lot of them opt to live in suburbs (ie. Arabs in Dearborn & Chaldeans in Sterling Heights or West Bloomfield) and not the city of Detroit.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

I'm not sure what you mean. The city of Chicago has lost more than a million residents since peak population. That is a fact. Without Hispanic immigration, IMO, large swatches of the city would look like Detroit lite, and even with it, you can simply tell walking through many neighborhoods that there is not enough people to fill the housing/retail that's been built up.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by UC18

Yes, really.



Exactly. So St. Louis has fewer college graduates living downtown than Chicago. That's what he was saying. That's what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. We all agree.

Vlajos posted his stats in response to Chet's article that showed a dramatic increase in metro areas, in particular metro St. Louis. Even if he had intended to change the conversation to a city versus city one, it's still not a good way of looking at it because there's more of a reason to live closer to downtown Chicago than there is downtown St. Louis.

That was my point.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Right, plus the lake is probably 30% of the 3 mile radius.

It doesn't exactly help St. Louis either. Immediately across the river from downtown St. Louis in Illinois is East St. Louis. You're not exactly picking up college grads until you would go further east into the Metro East.

The 3 mile metric sucks for both cities.

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

I'm not sure what you mean. The city of Chicago has lost more than a million residents since peak population. That is a fact. Without Hispanic immigration, IMO, large swatches of the city would look like Detroit lite, and even with it, you can simply tell walking through many neighborhoods that there is not enough people to fill the housing/retail that's been built up.

This is essentially why North St. Louis does look like Detroit. St. Louis' saving grace though is that the southern half of the city remains, for the most part, intact. From my albeit limited experience in Detroit proper, it felt like the decay was more widespread, even though St. Louis has lost a higher percentage of its peak population as of 2010.

PS: Not to nitpick, but Chicago lost about 900k if current estimates are to be believed. We all know how reliable they were the last time though.

[UC18]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

Vlajos posted his stats in response to Chet's article that showed a dramatic increase in metro areas, in particular metro St. Louis. Even if he had intended to change the conversation to a city versus city one, it's still not a good way of looking at it because there's more of a reason to live closer to downtown Chicago than there is downtown St. Louis.

That was my point.

The fact that there is more reason to live closer to downtown Chicago than there is to downtown St. Louis is exactly the point of a city-to-city comparison, though. That was my point.

Point taken about shifting from a metro area comparison to a city one, though.

[chet everett]

More postives from recent data about Minnesota:

The Miracle of Minneapolis - The Atlantic

Among residents under 35, the Twin Cities place in the top 10 for highest college-graduation rate, highest median earnings, and lowest poverty rate, according to the most recent census figures. And yet, according to the Center for Housing Policy, low-income families can rent a home and commute to work more affordably in Minneapolis–St. Paul than in all but one other major metro area (Washington, D.C.). Perhaps most impressive, the Twin Cities have the highest employment rate for 18-to-34-year-olds in the country.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by chet everett

More postives from recent data about Minnesota:

The Miracle of Minneapolis - The Atlantic

Minnesota, in contrast to Wisconsin, is absolutely thriving. Certainly worth considering, especially if you don't have too much trouble with extremely cold winters..