Cores in Chicagoland for the next 20-30 years (Schaumburg, Evanston: real estate, 2013)
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 feel comfortable giving Chicago/Chicagoland a title that, IMHO, no city/metro could even begin to challenge...
Chicago is the most single core-centric metro area in the nation. It's not even close. Our transportation system, public transit and expressways, is built more along the lines of "All roads lead to Rome/Chicago" than any other. We are the most concentric circles of any city (although even I have to admit the density is pretty low a half mile east of the Loop). The city, I believe, that people would raise as possibly the most core-oriented metro area is New York....from I hardly would give New York that title. The city has two massive, blockbuster, nation leading cores in Downtown and Midtown...plus a third, DT Brooklyn, that is far greater than what many of our larger cities have. And out-of-state but very much NY metro (enough to make it into the very center of the metro area) is Jersey City, a city would, I would argue, with a more famous skyline than any comparably sized city has. To me, NY metro is one of the least core (in terms of single core) centered.
Any other core we have in Chicagoland (if one even existed) is miles behind other cities. I'm not even sure which could even be considered cores: Schaumburg? Rosemont/O'Hare? Evanston? Oak Brook? And in the city itself: nothing.
Do you think the situation as it exists now will continue, or do you think there nodes in the metro area might evolve into true cores? Is it possible that Schaumburg with its highly advantageous location in regards to highways become a true core (or would its lack of rapid transit prevent that)? What about the reverse of Schaumburg...Evanston....which has the density, public transportation, urbanity that would be a suburban dream....except I'm pretty sure it is the largest city in IL without direct interstate access. Could being home to the U of C, the building of the Obama library, and the prized Jackson Park location make it possible for Hyde Park to become a core (I would say Hyde Park could be southern equivalent of western Oak Park and northern Evanston...except it is a neighborhood, not a municipality).
So....can actually get real cores in Chicagoland or enhance the ones that exist already (even on a puny scale)? Or will the greater downtown Chicago area remain our only true core? And can we honestly expect any other core to develop in an era that is no longer auto-friendly and public transit becomes more and more important?
I feel comfortable giving Chicago/Chicagoland a title that, IMHO, no city/metro could even begin to challenge...
Chicago is the most single core-centric metro area in the nation. It's not even close. Our transportation system, public transit and expressways, is built more along the lines of "All roads lead to Rome/Chicago" than any other. We are the most concentric circles of any city (although even I have to admit the density is pretty low a half mile east of the Loop). The city, I believe, that people would raise as possibly the most core-oriented metro area is New York....from I hardly would give New York that title. The city has two massive, blockbuster, nation leading cores in Downtown and Midtown...plus a third, DT Brooklyn, that is far greater than what many of our larger cities have. And out-of-state but very much NY metro (enough to make it into the very center of the metro area) is Jersey City, a city would, I would argue, with a more famous skyline than any comparably sized city has. To me, NY metro is one of the least core (in terms of single core) centered.
Any other core we have in Chicagoland (if one even existed) is miles behind other cities. I'm not even sure which could even be considered cores: Schaumburg? Rosemont/O'Hare? Evanston? Oak Brook? And in the city itself: nothing.
Do you think the situation as it exists now will continue, or do you think there nodes in the metro area might evolve into true cores? Is it possible that Schaumburg with its highly advantageous location in regards to highways become a true core (or would its lack of rapid transit prevent that)? What about the reverse of Schaumburg...Evanston....which has the density, public transportation, urbanity that would be a suburban dream....except I'm pretty sure it is the largest city in IL without direct interstate access. Could being home to the U of C, the building of the Obama library, and the prized Jackson Park location make it possible for Hyde Park to become a core (I would say Hyde Park could be southern equivalent of western Oak Park and northern Evanston...except it is a neighborhood, not a municipality).
So....can actually get real cores in Chicagoland or enhance the ones that exist already (even on a puny scale)? Or will the greater downtown Chicago area remain our only true core? And can we honestly expect any other core to develop in an era that is no longer auto-friendly and public transit becomes more and more important?
I think you listed the "cores" appropriately, but I think you're right about one thing. Without better public transit to Oak Brook or Schaumburg, they won't become more of a core. With more younger professionals moving to the city and more infill of Chicago's core, I suspect you won't see a new focus toward Oak Brook or Schaumburg until demand indicates it.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,320,406 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusillirob1983
I think you listed the "cores" appropriately, but I think you're right about one thing. Without better public transit to Oak Brook or Schaumburg, they won't become more of a core. With more younger professionals moving to the city and more infill of Chicago's core, I suspect you won't see a new focus toward Oak Brook or Schaumburg until demand indicates it.
And what about the current trend of large corporations moving their headquarters from the suburbs back to the city? An example is McDonald's leaving suburban Oak Brook and relocating in Chicago's West Loop. I see the suburban "Edge City" cores possibly weakening rather than further evolving, at least in the near future.
It would be amazing to see Hyde Park become a secondary CBD. At least a residential skyscraper node that's significantly disconnected from the downtown. They have gotten arguably the best architecture this cycle, hopefully heights increase in the neighborhood. If the original 400'+ tower for Harper Court would have went through as planned perhaps it would have been a springboard for building taller. I just can't see what would create that sort of demand, the Obama Library may bring a hotel or two but not corporate relocations or anything.
As for the core's future, it could become absolutely massive feeling like and even rivaling Midtown if River North fully builds out with good density and a taller plateau for the average tower than the 20-30 story filler going up everywhere. A good amount of skyscrapers and a couple/few supertalls would make it visibly an extension of the Loop. If development in the West Loop and Fulton Market area continues to expand all the way to the United Center and the South Loop grows to Chinatown that would be a gigantic core in league with any global city and we are seeing these trends. It's a real possibility over the next 20 years but Chicago needs to get over the height and density fears/restrictions, end Aldermanic prerogative and the potential is endless.
But in a city where an Alderman blocks a 60 story tower to save 2 single family houses with NIMBY lawsuits filed to stop any future development on the site and a multi-billion dollar project is told no hotel allowed forcing a year long delay for redesign it doesn't seem likely we will ever grow to our potential. These are the types of projects that should be fully embraced and rushed through the process. This is in large part why Chicago isn't keeping pace with the Toronto's, London's and NY's.
And what about the current trend of large corporations moving their headquarters from the suburbs back to the city? An example is McDonald's leaving suburban Oak Brook and relocating in Chicago's West Loop. I see the suburban "Edge City" cores possibly weakening rather than further evolving, at least in the near future.
Right, that's my point. I don't see them becoming any more of a "core" than they are now. If anything they will weaken. It's likely difficult to justify any real estate developer to build anything else in the suburbs at the moment. If anything, they would probably buy something that exists as a value add investor and upgrade. It's likely difficult for any governmental entities to make infrastructure investments to any of these "cores" because as we've both suggested, the trends all lead to the city at this point.
Rosemont maybe. Relatively recently, they built that huge shopping area right off of 294 - Fashion Outlets plus some restaurants, that expanded Rosemont's reach. If more of that happens, I see Rosemont as the only viable "threat" to be a core. It's already a hub for conventions, has the airport, reachable by public transportation and highways.
The others are just too far. Schaumburg tried - and it's what I would call a meaty suburban core but nothing that would compete, really, and given a lot of it is tied to retail brick and mortar, I don't see it growing, but rather, shrinking.
Right, that's my point. I don't see them becoming any more of a "core" than they are now. If anything they will weaken. It's likely difficult to justify any real estate developer to build anything else in the suburbs at the moment. If anything, they would probably buy something that exists as a value add investor and upgrade. It's likely difficult for any governmental entities to make infrastructure investments to any of these "cores" because as we've both suggested, the trends all lead to the city at this point.
This pretty much aligns with my original assertion that Chicagoland by nature is adverse to the development of auxiliary cores. The extended downtown core of Chicago has no equal, nor any that even come close to it anywhere in the nation. I profess that we are truly unique in this respect. Not better or worse, just different. Fantastic due to what that single core has to offer, debilitating with a transportation system (mass transit, expressways, etc) that function to get one into the core and then out of it. Look at any rapid transit map in the nation and CTA jumps out at you. Wheel and spokes. Every CTA line gets you downtown except for the yellow. But the yellow was developed to get you downtown by switching trains at Howard
There is no core that attracts like this one. Manhattan, as noted has two cores, downtown and midtown, their offerings considerable but the southern 2/3 of the island make up a large area, too big to be a core, that represents the heart of the city.
Besides, topography made Manhattan different. Manhattan is the true long island: very long and incredibly narrow. Put in a couple north south subways and you have everything connected. It was topography that turned Lower Manhattan to lose its main core status to Midtown and probably couldn’t happen elsewhere.
In Chicago, our downtown didn’t create another core. In Chicago, downtown just spread out.
Rosemont maybe. Relatively recently, they built that huge shopping area right off of 294 - Fashion Outlets plus some restaurants, that expanded Rosemont's reach. If more of that happens, I see Rosemont as the only viable "threat" to be a core. It's already a hub for conventions, has the airport, reachable by public transportation and highways.
The others are just too far. Schaumburg tried - and it's what I would call a meaty suburban core but nothing that would compete, really, and given a lot of it is tied to retail brick and mortar, I don't see it growing, but rather, shrinking.
Oak Brook is similar, but even smaller.
The Rosemont of today is virtually unrecognizable to the Rosemont of even 10 years ago. Now that entertainment district is fully built (and still expanding), an independent pro-baseball team (and softball team) have fields there, a huge modern mall opened in 2013, and businesses keep opening up in places like the Pearl district. Many people have even been saying that if the Bears ever relocate elsewhere in the Chicago area in the next 10-15 years (because Soldier Field is just not a great field for a major NFL team), Rosemont would be the place the new stadium is built in. So much development going on there, but it makes you wonder when it will reach maximum capacity and another suburb will become the main core?
I think Oak Brook has good potential; especially now that McDonald's moved out and has lots of space. That area of the western suburbs is, in reality, the geographical "center" of the Chicago area; not Chicago and not Rosemont. It's fairly accessible to those in the west, south, and north suburbs, as well as the city all via either 294 or 290/88. Not many other suburbs/areas in the metro can claim that. Also about equidistant between O'Hare and Midway airports. The only thing the place lacks is Metra, though even then Lombard isn't insanely far away.
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.
