How big will Chicago get? (Naperville, Elgin: real estate, 2015, apartments)

[AMWChicago]

This doesn't necessarily pertain to population, but more towards density in the Loop and River North area. As Chicago enters what I think is its 2nd Building Boom of the century, we see more and more lots being filled, buildings being renovated, parks being built, and the city modernizing. I guess I'm asking will Chicago's skyline continue to grow? And where? Will Chicago's skyline in 50 years start to rival that of New York's in shear size (We obviously know Chicago's skyline is more aesthetically pleasing than New York's )

[chet everett]

No.

There is just nowhere near the demand for either the kind of residential or commercial highrises that are common on Manhattan. Further Chicago has no way to increase either transit or roadway capacity to support such development except for a handful of sites in / near the Loop.

The cold hard facts clearly show that landlords have more motivation to add space not just to obvious markets like Manhattan, San Francisco, and Washington D.C., but also places like Denver & Houston -- http://www.savills-studley.com/Colla...ional_2014.pdf

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by AMWChicago

This doesn't necessarily pertain to population, but more towards density in the Loop and River North area. As Chicago enters what I think is its 2nd Building Boom of the century, we see more and more lots being filled, buildings being renovated, parks being built, and the city modernizing. I guess I'm asking will Chicago's skyline continue to grow? And where? Will Chicago's skyline in 50 years start to rival that of New York's in shear size (We obviously know Chicago's skyline is more aesthetically pleasing than New York's )

You rule out population? I presume that is because Chicago continues to lose population or hold even. What is it the slowest growing of the ten largest cities in the US?

Maybe you should form a campaign to cut the population loss or grow a few. Maybe an Alaska style bounty will save the city.

Your aesthetic sense is, by the way, as poor as your math. Chicago is not in the same class as NY. Gives Dallas a run though.

[marothisu]

As far as the OP's question goes - no, Chicago's skyline will not reach NY levels in the next 50 years or in any of our lifetimes, if ever. NY has one of the top 3 largest skylines in the entire world (maybe the largest?). For Chicago to get there in 50 years, it would have to be at a ridiculous rate which would probably be impossible.

The skyline will continue to grow as you have been seeing, but if you really think that Chicago is going to get to NY levels anytime in any of our lifetimes, then perhaps you should take a visit to NYC and understand just how many high rises are there and how big the skyline actually is because it is clear you don't understand that.Chicago is going to get anywhere even close to it anytime soon, if ever.

I think this post had a valid point until you mentioned NYC. Yes, the skyline in Chicago is growing and will continue to do so along with the density but please don't try and compare the size of Chicago's skyline to NYC's as if they're somehow close. Chicago might have the 2nd largest skyline in the US, but it's still probably 4-5X smaller than NYC's (not to mention that NYC has multiple skylines even if the others are small - such as Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn).

Originally Posted by chet everett

No.

There is just nowhere near the demand for either the kind of residential or commercial highrises that are common on Manhattan.

Right. Though luckly there is still enough demand in Chicago's core to expand the skyline nicely (and yeah, anybody with half a brain will know it's not going to get to NYC's size - probably...ever?).

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...rtment-project

The project will add to a bulging construction pipeline of apartments in downtown Chicago. Developers are on track to complete nearly 11,000 apartments in downtown Chicago in 2015, 2016 and 2017, a supply surge that will test the strength of the downtown market.

But comparing to NYC's size!? WTF?

[edsg25]

omg…..would anyone really like to see a manhattan like skyline in chicago? i have no doubt that manhattan's growth of super tall buildings will destroy the city.

"how big will Chicago get?" what insane times we are living in. the very growth and expansion is a cancer that is engulfing all of us. the very notion that if you're not growing or, heaven forbid, actually losing population makes you what Donald Trump would term "a loser" shows how nuts we are.

if I were a religious man (i'm not), I would respond to "Chicago just isn't in the same league as New York" with "thank god!!!!!!" aspire to be like NYC, my a**; Chicago may be in a different league than NewYork but IMHO, it's in a much better one.

jeez, folks, get a grip: any two-bit, unknown and nameless East Asian city can and does have a skyline commensurate to New York's.

the unsustainable global economy is in the process of breaking down, decaying, and will face collapse. anyone who doubts that doubts that climate change is unreal.

a society that is based on endless growth and expansion: talk about a disaster, a disaster playing out in real time. NYC expansion? I expect we'll see our share of NYC reduction, Venice style. I have little doubt that rising seas and more violent storms will nip at the shores of the upper bay, the Hudson and East rivers and reduce the size of the city.

[edsg25]

omg…..would anyone really like to see a manhattan like skyline in chicago? i have no doubt that manhattan's growth of super tall buildings will destroy the city. how many more soulless corporate towers that dwarf our size to virtual insignificance and wreck any notion of QOL do you wish to see rise on the benighted island? for i assure you that they will continue to grow bigger and exponentially more frequent as this feeding frenzy carries on. one wonders where the service people will come from to man their duties when even the outer boroughs, NJ, LI, Westchester, etc. becomes too expensive for them to live? (if they aren't already) I don't buy into the concept of "world's greatest city" but if I did, I'd probably give the title to NYC, circa 1950's, the city at its zenith, a creative cauldron of engery in the arts, commerce, culture, entertainment. the current corporate, disneyfied, generic city of the very rich is a mere shadow of its former self. How about San Francisco, that zany, crazy, anything goes and anything is possible center of individualism, a city of endless character that is being swamped by tech growth 2.0 as it morphs into an overpriced, sterile, cold metropolis with a skyline growth that will overwhelm the very natural landscape of the incredibly beautiful Bay Area, destroying the advantages this great city once had.

"how big will Chicago get?" what insane times we are living in. the very growth and expansion is a cancer that is engulfing all of us.

if I were a religious man (i'm not), I would respond to "Chicago just isn't in the same league as New York" with "thank god!!!!!!" aspire to be like NYC, my a**; Chicago may be in a different league than NewYork but IMHO, it's in a much better one. Chicago does best when it aspires to only one city: the best Chicago it can be.

jeez, folks, get a grip: any two bit, faceless, unknown and nameless East Asian city can and does have a skyline commensurate to New York's. my goodness, do we really believe that every city that fails to grow or…heaven forbid….actually loses population is what Donald Trump would term "a loo-zer"?

the unsustainable global economy is in the process of breaking down, decaying, and will face collapse. anyone who doubts that doubts that climate change is unreal.

a society that is based on endless growth and expansion: talk about a disaster, a disaster playing out in real time. NYC expansion? How about NYC reduction: i have no doubt that a Venitian like rise in seas and the increase in violent storms will flood the upper bay and the hudson and east rivers and nip well into the NYC shoreline. There is more than enough evidence out there that continuing feedback loops are accelerating the rise in sea level to a degree much higher than what was previously expected.

meanwhile in an opposite affect of H2O, for what it is worth (and not much), it would seem to me that no American city is in the position that Chicago is to utilize its possession of the most valuable of earthly resources….water: whose status has risen remarkably in recent times for the incredible worth it holds. Uncertain and trying times we are heading into (into already?), but my sense is that water will help Chicago immeasurably against all the so called "competition" that we seem to love here on city-data, where city vs. city is our bread and circuses of choice…..and where Chicago appears to be "everybody's favorite punching bag" (unlike out in the real world where, by my experiences, Chicago is recognized, loved, and admired for the incredibly great metropolis it undoubtedly is.

[Avondalist]

Chicago is different from New York, Boston, Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in that it is not hemmed in by land or water. This means most growth in the Chicago metro region will continue to occur at the periphery, which can expand for hundreds of miles. Geographically comparable cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Dallas, and Denver offer more attractive business climates and will siphon population from Chicago.

I disagree with Chet in one respect - there are three major opportunities to improve Chicago's transportation connections. The first is some version of the crosstown expressway. The second is a Metra ring line. The third is a western entrance at O'Hare connected to the Elgin-O'Hare expressway.

[Avondalist]

I looked at the document Chet linked to and found that what I assume is average daily taxes paid by landlords on an apartment was $8.25. Based on my experience this number passes the smell test.

I then looked at the daily cost of a Zone A monthly Metra pass from Naperville and found it to be $6.18.

So cheer up commuters, you're only paying 75% of what a landlord pays in real estate taxes to commute to the city. And that's without the hassle of missing your train.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by AMWChicago

This doesn't necessarily pertain to population, but more towards density in the Loop and River North area. As Chicago enters what I think is its 2nd Building Boom of the century, we see more and more lots being filled, buildings being renovated, parks being built, and the city modernizing. I guess I'm asking will Chicago's skyline continue to grow? And where? Will Chicago's skyline in 50 years start to rival that of New York's in shear size (We obviously know Chicago's skyline is more aesthetically pleasing than New York's )

Just out of curiosity, where do you foresee the jobs coming from that'll fuel this 2nd Building Boom? Doesn't seem a lot of people understand this but economic growth is tied to, well, economics. Neither Jesus nor good will provide tall buildings, as my grampy used to say. I love Chicago but there are a lot of challenges, including a bankrupt CPS and an astronomical pension debt that no politicians seem to have the stones to really address.

Focus on population numbers only tells part of the story. I think Chicago's population loss is largest among lower income residents. Higher income residents are moving into the City. But for that to be sustainable, Chicago will have to foster a more job-friendly environment, IMHO of course.

[steeps]

Yes, Chicago WAS on a building boom when the crash hit. At least 3 SuperTalls were cancelled. That one on Wacker Dr. Was 20 stories up when cancelled and we surely know of the Chicago Spire. Foundation in and cancelled. If the Crash came a year later? Surely they would have been finished. Even if the Spire got scaled back.

Now Chicago got New Hotels built and coming and especially Apartment Skyscraper living. Condos still too among the mix. The city is VERY DIVERSE in no one industry. Hold more then 14% of the workforce.

Chicago is also experiencing Black flight. Even the Failed notorious Housing Projects are gone. But NYC still has theirs.....

I complement the previous mayor, for clearing out the worst of the blighted housing of the Southside. I remember in the 80's.... one time driving from.... I believe Berwyn/Cicero, into the city. OMG Night and day. Literally a war zone appearance. THAT IS ALL GONE. Or does streetvilles360° fail me now to find it?

I see plenty of Cleared lots retuned to prairie in the Garfield's for example and Lawndale's. Also even in other parts south. Something that HAD TO BE DONE AND CITY DID IT....

As for downtown again booming at a steady pace as it should. THOSE WHO LESSEN CHICAGO'S SKYLINE.... Because NYC, Manhattan in Particular is more massive. I'D SAY 45 YEARS AGO... NO ONE WAS COMPAREING CHICAGO'S SKYLINE TO MANHATTAN'S. But at some point IT EVOLVED TO ICONIC TOO . Not about beating a NYC. Also it is FULLY AMERICAN IN DESIGN. Unlike Asian cities taking on a 40s 50s look in a poster or sic-fi movie of the future.

Chicago can still give Skyscraper buildings garages for their Sports Cars and few hundred thousand $ vehicles and GREEN SPACE within and around its for living skyscrapers. In Manhattan the square footage is too high to us for it.

Downtown still has land to grow Downtown on.... especial South. Using air-rights over Railroad beds could even continue.

What Chicago suffers from is.... Still lost so much of its industrial base. Why it is a Rust belt city. The negative stereotyping of Gang related crime and ..... seen as one of the worst big cities for Winters.

I do believe the Midwest will again grow in desirability. Especially if Climate change does nip at coastal cities, and Water shortage issues get any more dire?

Plenty of areas that can have new infill, as gentrified neighborhoods showed how it is done. Doom and gloom only....NO.

Downtown WOWS Tourist now and that's surely a good thing. Just for comparisons though.... HOUSTON gets 14 million Tourist a year... HOPING to hit 20 million in a few years.... CHICAGO HIT 50 MILLION IN 2014.