When a suburb loses its headquarters

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i prefer michigan, myself, and its shoreline to wisconsin. if i want pine forest i've got the rocky, dry, spring fed river ozarks without lyme disease, mosquitos of the northwoods, endless caravans of chicago sports'd up RVs and annoyed locals who presume that i'm from chicago.

with the exception of door county, wisconsin (in the eyes of vacationing chicagoans) isn't so much about lake michigan's shoreline, but rather the 15,000 small lakes that completely speckle the interior of the state of wisconsin. you can't go more than a handful of miles in wisconsin without coming across some random ass lake lined with summer cottages. they're EVERYWHERE.

they certainly have that small lake thing over in michigan as well, but given chicagoland's northern and western bias, it's easier for more people to "get out of town" by heading up to cheeselandia, instead of fighting the metro area itself by going around the bottom of the lake.

but both wisconsin and michigan receive ass-loads of vacationing chicagoans every summer. in the spring, literally every other TV and radio commercial in chicago is an ad for either wisconsin or michigan summer vacations. their tourism boards spend untold millions here in ad buys every year.

my family has been going up to mackinac island for summer vacation every year for the past 45 years.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

with the exception of door county, wisconsin (in the eyes of vacationing chicagoans) isn't so much about lake michigan's shoreline, but rather the 15,000 small lakes that completely speckle the interior of the state of wisconsin. you can't go more than a handful of miles in wisconsin without coming across some random ass lake lined with summer cottages. they're EVERYWHERE.

they certainly have that small lake thing over in michigan as well, but given chicagoland's northern and western bias, it's easier for more people to "get out of town" by heading up to cheeselandia, instead of fighting the metro area itself by going around the bottom of the lake.

there are some *very* nice ones, to be sure. i am biased against “small” lakes probably because i think of impoundments that destroyed free flowing clear spring fed rivers here and disgusting festering mud holes in central illinois. i’ve done more of the small lake stuff in minnesota, the closer-in wisco lakes can be a shitshow and i’ve had some bad holidays...the crowds are too much sometimes.

the big sandy less-buggy michigan shoreline is just more appealing to me and more novel...it has that true coastal feel. personal preferences.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i prefer michigan, myself, and its shoreline to wisconsin. if i want pine forest i've got the rocky, dry, spring fed river ozarks without lyme disease, mosquitos of the northwoods, endless caravans of chicago sports'd up RVs and annoyed locals who presume that i'm from chicago.

Michigan side of Lake Michigan, generally speaking, is vastly superior to Wisconsin side, both in terms of beaches and towns.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

the big sandy less-buggy michigan shoreline is just more appealing to me and more novel...it has that true coastal feel. personal preferences.

My family has a cottage on Lake Huron and you get ridiculous black flies in late May through July early/late in the day. Lake Michigan is the same.

Once you hit August there are almost no issues. And if it's a windy day, even during bug season, there are no bugs.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

with the exception of door county, wisconsin (in the eyes of vacationing chicagoans) isn't so much about lake michigan's shoreline, but rather the 15,000 small lakes that completely speckle the interior of the state of wisconsin. you can't go more than a handful of miles in wisconsin without coming across some random ass lake lined with summer cottages. they're EVERYWHERE.

And rivers, don't forget rivers. Wisconsin has several large rivers that are vacation favorites including the Wisconsin River which is what forms the Dells which is the #1 tourist destination in the state. I have a vacation home on the Wolf River which is 20'+ deep, a minimum of 500' wide, and navigable for 20 miles up stream and 100+ miles downstrem until you hit Lake Michigan. The Wolf River flowage connects over a dozen lakes as well so we can just boat up or down stream (depending on what we feel like that day) to find still water to float in or sand bars to wade on.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

there are some *very* nice ones, to be sure. i am biased against “small” lakes probably because i think of impoundments that destroyed free flowing clear spring fed rivers here and disgusting festering mud holes in central illinois. i’ve done more of the small lake stuff in minnesota, the closer-in wisco lakes can be a shitshow and i’ve had some bad holidays...the crowds are too much sometimes.

the big sandy less-buggy michigan shoreline is just more appealing to me and more novel...it has that true coastal feel. personal preferences.

Yeah, then don't swim in the farm runoff freeway lakes of downstate Illinois then. Any part of Wisconsin South of a Milwaukee to Beloit line (basically I-43) is considered part of Illinois anyhow. You need to go north of Madison and Milwaukee if you want to even come close to true Wisconsin wilderness. Once you pass Fond Du Lac, you are in Business. Absolute Wilderness (sconnies only for the most part) exists only above a Green Bay to Wausau line. The lakes in Wisconsin in crystal clear glacial washouts that are usually spring fed because they are big pits left from melting glaciers that only exist because they are so deep that ground water seeps in and fills them up. Once you pass Green Bay and Wausau, the soils turn to mostly sand which only further facilitates springwater and also means less silt in the water.

I used to go to a camp as a kid in Northern Wisconsin where the lakes would drop to 90' deep just 100' off shore and you could literally see the dropoff from a boat. You could see the lake bottom 20' deep and then just BLACK as it plunges down into a glacial kettle. But the most impressive thing was just being able to see everything going on at the bottom of the lake. You could literally be fishing and see a big ass fish hiding next to a log and throw your bait right in front of its nose to try to catch it.

But yeah, anything within a 2 hour drive of Chicago is unbearably crowded and cannot possibly offer the experience you would get at Lac du Flambeau, Shawano Chain, Waupaca Chain, Eagle River, Minoqua, etc. Even places like Waupaca have become horribly congested the last 10-15 years as Wisconsin foolishly continues to drive limited access highways further and further into the state. We can't continue to complain about FIBs coming and ruining our state when we are building pathways right to the heart of our best country. When I was a kid (and I'm not very old) we still drove on 2 lane highways almost the entire way from Milwaukee to my grandparents in the Fox Valley. Now it's six lane superhighway from Fon du Lac to Green Bay...

[Doady]

I don't think it matters where companies are located, except if they want to be located within walking distance of each other for face-to-face meetings, in which case they can pay a premium to be located downtown. The central city vs the suburb doesn't really matter. They are ultimately one, not separate.

[Steely Dan]

^ in a growing metro area, it's probably a lot easier to adopt the "we're all one" mentality, but in a stagnant metro area like chicago, as company after company leaves their suburban office park for downtown, it's not always obvious how the void left behind gets filled, so there's more of a "what the hell are we supposed to do now?" attitude, which can breed resentment.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Doady

I don't think it matters where companies are located, except if they want to be located within walking distance of each other for face-to-face meetings, in which case they can pay a premium to be located downtown. The central city vs the suburb doesn't really matter. They are ultimately one, not separate.

It certainly matters to the companies.

Some go by the "closer to the boss' suburban house" theory, but those are increasingly in the minority in cities with healthy cores.

Those who want to attract decently-paid 20-somethings are heavily tilted toward urban locations so they can recruit.

In some regions like mine, there's basically zero office construction except around decent transit, even in the suburbs.

[cityscapes]

If the far flung suburbs there are hurting due to relocations that's fine by me. Relocating from the core of Chicago was a mistake in the first place. If suburban places that were never designed with a sense of permanence to begin with are abandoned there is no real loss. Seeing companies move back to inner Chicago is a good thing.

The employees and the amenities the employers and employees want are all in the core.

[IMBY]

I just read a rather condemnatory article on Rahm, current mayor, and what is done in Chicago to attract business from across the country and from the Chicago area, lots of tax incentives they can't get elsewhere.

I recall reading a bio of old man Daley, in regards to Sears threatening to leave the Loop for the suburbs. There's wasn't anything Daley would do to keep them in the Loop.

Daley: What do we/I need to do to keep you in the Loop?
Sears: We want 2 whole blocks downtown and the street closed off between them.
Daley: You've got it!

And up went the Sears Tower!

And why didn't other cities follow suit? Do anything to keep business from fleeing?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by IMBY

I just read a rather condemnatory article on Rahm, current mayor, and what is done in Chicago to attract business from across the country and from the Chicago area, lots of tax incentives they can't get elsewhere.

I recall reading a bio of old man Daley, in regards to Sears threatening to leave the Loop for the suburbs. There's wasn't anything Daley would do to keep them in the Loop.

Daley: What do we/I need to do to keep you in the Loop?
Sears: We want 2 whole blocks downtown and the street closed off between them.
Daley: You've got it!

And up went the Sears Tower!

And why didn't other cities follow suit? Do anything to keep business from fleeing?

Rahm has the wind at his back compared to old man Daley.

Back then, everybody was decamping for suburban campuses.

Today, the city is in vogue. There is a massive push towards the central city, and Rahm just took advantage of this to “nudge” corporations to do what may have ended up happening eventually.

Still, it’s good that Chicago had a champion in office. Had we had, for example, a hack Mayor like Toni Preckwinkle who views companies as ATMs for unions and who views violent criminals as victims who should be coddled, the flood of companies downtown almost certainly would’ve been less dramatic.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Rahm has the wind at his back compared to old man Daley.

Back then, everybody was decamping for suburban campuses.

Today, the city is in vogue. There is a massive push towards the central city, and Rahm just took advantage of this to “nudge” corporations to do what may have ended up happening eventually.

Still, it’s good that Chicago had a champion in office. Had we had, for example, a hack Mayor like Toni Preckwinkle who views companies as ATMs for unions and who views violent criminals as victims who should be coddled, the flood of companies downtown almost certainly would’ve been less dramatic.

I was going to bring up the mayors race. It seems a lot of them want to further add taxes to offices downtown. Its like .."guys we just got them down here, lets keep him here and not scare them off." Who looks like they are gonna win?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ in a growing metro area, it's probably a lot easier to adopt the "we're all one" mentality, but in a stagnant metro area like chicago, as company after company leaves their suburban office park for downtown, it's not always obvious how the void left behind gets filled, so there's more of a "what the hell are we supposed to do now?" attitude, which can breed resentment.

A ton of ink has been spilled on this in the Detroit media over the past 5 years, and it's the epitome of ironic.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A ton of ink has been spilled on this in the Detroit media over the past 5 years, and it's the epitome of ironic.

yes, the Schadenfreude on the part of the city is thick.

"ohhhh, all your company's are leaving for greener pastures and you have no idea what to do. that must be sooooooooo frustrating."

[Baronvonellis]

Well the metra system is designed to funnel workers from the distant suburbs into the loop quickly. I don't see why they can't be bedroom communities of office workers and be fine. That's what the suburbs were originally built for. The system just doesn't work the reverse direction, taking the metra to a far suburb with no public transit when you get there, and then the offices are all 5 miles away next to an expressway off ramp. It never made much sense to build dense offices in corn fields, except to be closer to the CEO's house.
This seems far more efficient with the transit system we currently have.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes, the Schadenfreude on the part of the city is thick.

"ohhhh, all your company's are leaving for greener pastures and you have no idea what to do. that must be sooooooooo frustrating."

Lol, yeah...the irony.

[Centropolis]

skimmed a wall street journal section this morning on the collapse of suburban chicago residential real estate. ultra high end is on the market for HALF of what it was pre-2007.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

skimmed a wall street journal section this morning on the collapse of suburban chicago residential real estate. ultra high end is on the market for HALF of what it was pre-2007.

I don't think this is a uniform collapse, though.

Places like Winnetka and Hinsdale are probably doing OK; places like Barrington and Lake Forest (too far out and overbuilt with too big homes) are probably struggling.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

skimmed a wall street journal section this morning on the collapse of suburban chicago residential real estate. ultra high end is on the market for HALF of what it was pre-2007.

and it's not just the ultra high end that's hurting either.

we hosted a family party yesterday and my sister was openly complaining about how their (middle class) house way up in lake county (one that she desperately wants to sell) still isn't worth what they paid for it 17 years ago (and they've also dumped a bunch of money into home improvements over the years).

i can't imagine owning real estate for nearly 2 decades and not having a single red cent of appreciation to show for it. i haven't exactly gotten rich off of my real estate purchases in the city (after all, this is chicago, not SF), but at least there's been solid and steady equity growth there for each of them.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think this is a uniform collapse, though.

Places like Winnetka and Hinsdale are probably doing OK; places like Barrington and Lake Forest (too far out and overbuilt with too big homes) are probably struggling.

the article centropolis is referencing spoke exclusively of lake front property on the northshore (creme de la creme real estate in chicagoland), and yes, even in places like winnetka, lakefront property is apparently hurting compared to 15 years ago.


Once an easy sell, North Shore’s lakefront mansions languishing on the market

There are about 300 lakefront homes in the North Shore. Those that were listed saw an average 132 days on the market in 2018, with the priciest sale coming in at $7 million. In 2015, the average home sat on the market for 98.5 days, and three homes sold for at least $10 million.

One homeowner who talked to the Journal bought her lakefront home for $2.3 million in 1998 before listing it for $9.7 million in 2007. She is now asking $4.7 million.

but the pool of home sales they're working with for the story is awfully small, so grains of salt and all that...........