Why isn't Chicago Metro growing.... (Manhattan, Brooklyn: condos, crime, gated)

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

I'm pretty sure the metro area as a whole is growing...(Chicagoland)

It has the slowest growth of any major metro area in the U.S., and has growth near zero. So on a relative basis, Chicagoland isn't really growing.

The biggest factors are probably outside of Chicagoland's control, though. The fact is that Illinois has serious problems, and the Great Lakes area isn't growing, so it will be hard to grow when there isn't much growth in the larger region.

Immigration to Chicago has dropped big-time from previous years, so immigration from abroad isn't going to do it either.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

For one, many areas with demand for growth have muted numbers due to the decrease or tepid growth of housing units. You can't grow if you don't allow it.

What does that mean? People don't decide to have babies or to immigrate to a city because of "growth of housing units".

Where in the U.S. is there a metro area where "tepid growth of housing units" influences population figures? If anything, the reverse is true. Poor population numbers will lead to limited housing production.

[linicx]

I have two observations.

1- Cook County has some of the lowest real estate taxes in Illnois.
2- The Illinois State Legislature is overburdened by Cook County and Chicago politicians that have no idea whatsoever how the residents in the other 101 counties live. One more boring Chicago governor is not a step in the right direction.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

The biggest factors are probably outside of Chicagoland's control, though. The fact is that Illinois has serious problems, and the Great Lakes area isn't growing, so it will be hard to grow when there isn't much growth in the larger region.

Actually, the biggest factors are well within Chicagoland's control, as they(we) send the lion's share of elected officials to Springfield who govern the state.

[LeotheOrangeCat]

too cold

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

Actually, the biggest factors are well within Chicagoland's control, as they(we) send the lion's share of elected officials to Springfield who govern the state.

That's true. In that respect, people vote for their leaders, and Chicagoland comprises the majority of the state.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

What does that mean? People don't decide to have babies or to immigrate to a city because of "growth of housing units".

Where in the U.S. is there a metro area where "tepid growth of housing units" influences population figures? If anything, the reverse is true. Poor population numbers will lead to limited housing production.

If you prevent or severely limit new housing in areas where there is demand, you limit growth (but increase value of existing units)

Chicago’s housing market is broken | City Notes

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

If you prevent or severely limit new housing in areas where there is demand, you limit growth (but increase value of existing units)

Chicago’s housing market is broken | City Notes

The discussion that Daniel and some of the comments have is mostly accurate -- Chicago has weirdly seen lots of loss of housing units even in areas of high demand. That said, they miss (or too quickly gloss over) the FACT that Chicago does not have a traditional "educated planners vs unwashed masses with established interests" type zoning process BUT a process so distorted by the overly powerful Alderman (who've been shown to repeatedly act not in the best interest any one side...) who corruptly greenlight projects based on campaign donations and then hand-wavingly dismiss objections from BOTH planners and voters! It is really the worst kind of dysfunctional non-management of "growth". It leads to over-crowded roads and CTA stops on the northside and near ghosttown disinvestment in other areas.

The traditional factors, like "people will go where the jobs are" are stymied by lack of any coherent strategy to re-develop sites that have seen massive job losses. Arguably, that aspect of haphazard "counter enticement" that once saw Chicago bidding against other cities in the country for larger employers, has devolved into bozos under Rahm doing a happy dance that they've gotten a suburban employer to move downtown -- such things rarely have a positive effect in ways that really matter, like total REGIONAL employment that is needed for true growth.

Of course the extreme parochialism and "wallow in the pork" mindset that have look been practiced by Machine politicians from Daley to Rostenkowski to Stroger to Madigan and Rahm have wastefully squandered the increasingly tight resources of City / County / State / Feds on spending that is so uncoordinated as to be counterproductive. One need only look at a handful of things like the enormous MSI parking garage, Cook Co hospital charade, middle of the night Meigs Field runway tear-out, weirdly non-capacity increasing O'Hare spending, and city-wide 'wrought-iron festival' to conclude that we have near psychotic levels of personal-driven non-governance...

The net result of these things MIGHT not be so crippling if there were some fiscal underpinning to ensure that future obligations could be met, but instead judge after judge sides with the interpretation that will bind all Illinois government to unsustainable levels of taxation -- BREAKING -- Chicago Pension Changes Ruled Unconstitutional |NYT

Together with an environment seemingly more shaped by organized labor conditions that existed not in an era of global trade but instead when hordes of fresh-off-the-boat European immigrants were eager to work in conditions that could see them chopped up for "potted ham", the response of employers is understandable -- BREAKING -- Mitsubishi closing Normal Illinois plant, ending U.S. production | ChicagoTribune

About the only good news is that for now it is only "nutty professor" types who want to really kill off the Golden Goose that keeps the bilges from flooding -- Chicago Political Economy Group » Financial Transaction Tax

Despite the legitimate sounding name, that "group" is more "auxiliary professor of Social Justice and Ethnic Studies" than anything respectable. Believe me, if such a "proposal" ever gets traction there is only one sane response: "Last one to leave, please turn out the lights..."

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

If you prevent or severely limit new housing in areas where there is demand, you limit growth (but increase value of existing units)

No you don't. New housing units are a very small part of the overall housing market. And no one decides to make a baby or immigrate to a new country or to take a job in a new city based on whether or not local housing construction is robust.

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Chicago’s housing market is broken | City Notes

And this article is ridiculous. Chicago is known as the most pro-development major U.S. city, so the idea that Chicagoland isn't growing because new housing can't be built is basically absurd. Chicago can sprawl all the way to Iowa if there was such demand. The city is so pro development they basically pay developers to build new highrises downtown.

SF is like 1000x more NIMBY and anti-growth than Chicago, yet SF has extremely robust population growth. How does that figure into your theory?

[dude1984]

Don't know, don't care. My indifferent hypothesis is that the cities that are growing have growth for one of three reasons:
1) (Illegal) immigration;
2) People looking for a change of scenery. Most of these people are from the NE or Great Lakes region. They head west because it is different. It's the American way. Things are going well for you out east, head west and try to build a life out there. The exception to the rule is NYC, but that is the unofficial capital of the world, so...
3) They transfer for a job, most likely to a new branch. This is usually someplace out west.