CHICAGO population grows 2%, remains 3rd largest city (Oakland: homes, gated)

[Greencheese]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

I agree with you. Some city limits like Houston Phoenix and LA are massive while others are much smaller. Long gone are the days where cities dominated the metro areas. Now the vast majority of residents in a metro area live outside the city limits. As for price tags, Chicago was inexpensive at one point but imo city gov leaders are trying hard to make this city unaffordable for lower and middle income earners. Chicago ranks second in most expensive state and local sales taxes. Add all the additional fees as well as the property taxes and there you have it.



Still cheaper than some other major cities though.



https://federalcos.com/blog/chicago-cost-of-living/

I think for Chicago you really need to stratify the data due to the high level of segregation. Generally speaking, nobody with options is going to move to the south or west sides. Alot of people like to lump the city together when it suits them (such as housing costs) but divide it up when it suits as well (fastest growing business district, isolating crime by neighborhood). Fact of the matter is people who are moving to Chicago are looking at the northside or simply passing by, there's no interest or reason for them to consider the remainder of the city in most cases.

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by Greencheese

I think for Chicago you really need to stratify the data due to the high level of segregation. Generally speaking, nobody with options is going to move to the south or west sides. Alot of people like to lump the city together when it suits them (such as housing costs) but divide it up when it suits as well (fastest growing business district, isolating crime by neighborhood). Fact of the matter is people who are moving to Chicago are looking at the northside or simply passing by, there's no interest or reason for them to consider the remainder of the city in most cases.

This is Chicago's black eye. I love the city, but if there is one thing Chicago has major problems with its residential segregation.

[shredyz]

Originally Posted by Don Cuccino

Big reason why Houston has grown is because it keeps annexing land into their city. Chicago's population would undoubtedly grow if it did the same thing. Houston is almost 3 times the size of Chicago. If it annexed just Evanston, Cicero, and Skokie our population would be almost 3 million, and that's just 3 suburbs.

I think annexing Harwood Heights and Norridge first makes more sense, and then the others. But yes this would be a good way to boost population.

[Ryantheturtle]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

This is Chicago's black eye. I love the city, but if there is one thing Chicago has major problems with its residential segregation.

Lmao yet homes on the southside are selling faster than on the northside.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xOA6CIUCxkYd7W


Anybody who still parrots that dump "only the northside is good, south and west side bad" haven't been to the south lakefront area or bridgeport or mckinley park recently. Theres SO much development happening.

[Beardown91737]

Originally Posted by shredyz

I think annexing Harwood Heights and Norridge first makes more sense, and then the others. But yes this would be a good way to boost population.

I don't think you can just annex an incorporated village or city, otherwise I would suggest annexing Green Bay and using it for a toxic waste dump.

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by Ryantheturtle

Lmao yet homes on the southside are selling faster than on the northside.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xOA6CIUCxkYd7W


Anybody who still parrots that dump "only the northside is good, south and west side bad" haven't been to the south lakefront area or bridgeport or mckinley park recently. Theres SO much development happening.

I don’t think that was the point AASB was making at all. Residential segregation is just a fact of Chicago’s DNA.

Also faster sales / home price growth doesn’t necessarily mean those parts of the South Side are eclipsing the North Side in popularity - if anything we might expect South Side home values to grow more quickly vis-a-vis Lincoln Park, Lakeview etc. because the latter are mature demand neighborhoods.

[Greencheese]

Originally Posted by Ryantheturtle

Lmao yet homes on the southside are selling faster than on the northside.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xOA6CIUCxkYd7W


Anybody who still parrots that dump "only the northside is good, south and west side bad" haven't been to the south lakefront area or bridgeport or mckinley park recently. Theres SO much development happening.

Easier to buy when there's nothing but cheap homes, tons of empty plots and government housing programs than in an area surrounded by million dollar housing units, such a crazy revelation.

[Runuova]

Originally Posted by Greencheese

Easier to buy when there's nothing but cheap homes, tons of empty plots and government housing programs than in an area surrounded by million dollar housing units, such a crazy revelation.

Homes selling for 200k or more dosen't sound cheap to me. You seem pretty ignorant about south side real estate.

[dtcbnd03]

Originally Posted by Runuova

Homes selling for 200k or more dosen't sound cheap to me. You seem pretty ignorant about south side real estate.

$200k is very cheap...especially in the third largest city in US.

[personone]

Originally Posted by dtcbnd03

$200k is very cheap...especially in the third largest city in US.

Yep, I was thinking the exact same thing. Good luck finding anything for $200K in LA or NYC that's not reserved for government-assisted housing. Let alone in San Francisco, Boston, or San Diego. Even in Oakland, you'd be hard-pressed finding anything other than a foreclosure for that price.

$200K is dirt cheap and unheard of in any of the costal cities that Chicago is peers with.