Did you grow up in and/or are you raising a family in urban multi-family housing?

[Crawford]

I don't think outdoor space matters when children are young. Few parents let their kids roam free, so I don't see the difference. If we had a giant backyard, instead of no backyard, it wouldn't change a thing for us right now, because we would never let a 3-yo roam alone outside, obviously. We have massive outdoor space right outside, but parkland, and it isn't really harder crossing the street to said parkland than it is going to a backyard. At this age you have to accompany the child no matter the living circumstances.

Also, I will never get why people think that cheap(er) RE, without any context, is a "deal". A "deal" in RE is one that provides a good return. Detroit is a much worse deal than SF, as Detroit has had poor returns and SF has had fantastic returns. Chicago actually has the worst RE returns of any major U.S. market per the Case Schiller index, so that's factored into the pricing. That said, I agree that the pandemic is likely providing good deals in commercial-type areas across the U.S. like the Loop, because they have been especially hit hard, and the downturn is likely temporary. Probably the ideal time to buy in such a neighborhood, but not the best time to buy in general, unless you have to, whether city or suburb, because no one knows where this is all headed.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Well, my wife and I are closing next week on a highrise condo in the loop (2br/1200sqft/$300k/~$2k monthly cost). And we're currently trying to make a kid, so we'll see how it goes!

Congrats, that's awesome! I'm not saying it can't be done, but raising in a 1,200 ft condo will be tough long term. You'll almost certainly underestimate the amount of shit a kid accumulates, and in 1200 sq ft (all on one floor) will drive you nuts. i'd look at the condo as a 5-7 year investment, TBH.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think outdoor space matters when children are young. Few parents let their kids roam free, so I don't see the difference. If we had a giant backyard, instead of no backyard, it wouldn't change a thing for us right now, because we would never let a 3-yo roam alone outside, obviously. We have massive outdoor space right outside, but parkland, and it isn't really harder crossing the street to said parkland than it is going to a backyard. At this age you have to accompany the child no matter the living circumstances.

well yeah, but wait until your kid is 5-8 years old and they want to be outside playing all.the.time. Without dedicated outdoor space the options are either 1. Mom / Dad have to take kid to park (which is fine, but tough if it's multiple times a day and for hours at a time), 2. Go sit on the porch 3. go play in your room.
As the saying goes, people used to raise kids in caves, so it can certainly be done, but life is easier for a parent, and much better for a kid, if they have some sort of outdoor green space where they can play on demand.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

There haven't been that many new non-ultra luxury condos built downtown recently. Most of the recent highrises have been all rentals. But I have a feeling that a lot of condos downtown are owned by investors as rental properties.

May I ask if you bought at 235 Van Buren? My brother-in-law has a number of investment units there, and while not officially listed for sale, they could all be purchased below market. So if anyone is looking for a deal in a newish building.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think outdoor space matters when children are young. Few parents let their kids roam free, so I don't see the difference.

Most of the parents that I know would be comfortable letting their 3 year old roam around a fenced yard.

We certainly were when our kids were those ages.

But NYC is so intensely urban that the parenting culture may be different out there (ie. more helicoptering).

In any event, when you're in the middle of doing something and your kids are going nuts inside, being able to just open up the back door and kick them outside is a nice luxury in my experience.

That's not to say that children must absolutely have access to attached outside space, I'm just saying that, as a parent, kicking your kids outside to the yard is a fundamentally different thing than taking them on a supervised trip to the local park or playground.

Because our outside play spaces are small compared to a typical suburban back yard (and we don't have the swing set and sandbox and tree house and other big yard trappings), we still do a lot of trips to our neighborhood parks and playgrounds as well, which are thankfully plentiful.

Creamy middles.......

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

well yeah, but wait until your kid is 5-8 years old and they want to be outside playing all.the.time. Without dedicated outdoor space the options are either 1. Mom / Dad have to take kid to park (which is fine, but tough if it's multiple times a day and for hours at a time), 2. Go sit on the porch 3. go play in your room.

Yeah, you might be right. We'll see as he gets older, but right now I wouldn't trust him outdoors alone for even 30 seconds.

Also, he's in school five days a week, and we have activities all weekend. I don't see any timeframe where he would be bored at home for hours. He's never home except to bathe/sleep.

But we just have one child, and we have no issue supervising him as long as it takes. And I don't think this would change if we were living in rural Alaska or in Midtown Manhattan.

[drummer]

I think outdoor space is hugely important for kids, especially at a young age. We didn't let our son roam free when he was a walking 1 year old though, haha... Now we take them hiking in the Texas Hill Country as often as we can. Previously we would do so in nearby mountain ranges. We want them to love nature as well as enjoy urban, diverse environments.

When we lived in a high rise, we utilized public parks, green spaces, etc., all the time. We walked to them or took bikes/car/public transport, depending on where we were going. We made it work because we wanted him to enjoy playing outside. I also had a child carrier on the back of my bike.

We let our 4-year-old play in the backyard all the time by himself and just glance out occasionally to make sure still alive. Though a lot of the time I'm also out there with him when I'm home because he wants to play baseball, soccer, etc. We wouldn't let him go down the street to a park by himself, though...but we still walk to parks all the time since we're fortunate enough to have several nearby.

We also enjoy taking all of our kids to the hike and bike trail in downtown Austin to let them learn and see urban environments since we don't live in one anymore. We teach our older son safe walking habits in a downtown setting with lights, crosswalks, etc. - I think this is hugely important. We take buses sometimes (though it is a pain with three kids in strollers, admittedly). In China we used Ergo carriers more often than strollers, which made it easier. We used these all over the world on LRT, subways, buses, water taxis (Bangkok), car taxis, tuk tuks, etc. When we were urban, we tried to be as mobile as we could be. This is just out story - everyone has different preferences or situations, of course.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

May I ask if you bought at 235 Van Buren? My brother-in-law has a number of investment units there, and while not officially listed for sale, they could all be purchased below market. So if anyone is looking for a deal in a newish building.

Not that side of the loop! Although there are a lot of units for sale in that building at pretty attractive prices. They're mostly a bit on the small side though.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Not that side of the loop! Although there are a lot of units for sale in that building at pretty attractive prices. They're mostly a bit on the small side though.

It's a newish building with very good prices and built by good developer, who is friends with my brother in law. Yeah, units are small, and basic.

A potential negative is that it's kinda dorm-like. Most of the units are investor-owned, and there are a lot of college students in that general area. So yeah, probably not ideal for a couple trying to have a kid. You might get Wednesday night beer pong parties nextdoor or whatever.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Crawford

May I ask if you bought at 235 Van Buren? My brother-in-law has a number of investment units there, and while not officially listed for sale, they could all be purchased below market. So if anyone is looking for a deal in a newish building.

I own an investment condo there as well.

I'd be interested perhaps, if he's willing to sell

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Not that side of the loop! Although there are a lot of units for sale in that building at pretty attractive prices. They're mostly a bit on the small side though.

235 W VB is an awesome building design-wise, but it was definitely built with investor-owners in mind as opposed to live in owners. There are few amenities, which keeps monthly assessments low.

As an owner I have insider info, however, that this is slowly changing. THe association wants to add some features that make it more appealing. For example, there is talk about building out an exercise room. That is helpful not only for live-in owners but for investor owners, as a lot of renters want such facilities in their buildings.

235 VB may have been "off the beaten path" 11 years ago when it was built, but it's growing more valuable every day. Once the Stupid Virus is gone, the job migration towards the West and SW Loop will pick up where it left off. It's also near Willis Tower, OPO, and other booming areas seeing lots of investment. Stay tuned...

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Congrats, that's awesome! I'm not saying it can't be done, but raising in a 1,200 ft condo will be tough long term. You'll almost certainly underestimate the amount of shit a kid accumulates, and in 1200 sq ft (all on one floor) will drive you nuts. i'd look at the condo as a 5-7 year investment, TBH.

Well, my parents sister and I never lived in a place as big as 1,200 sq feet until I was 12 (by which point all I needed was a desk with a computer...), so we'll see. I think shit accumulates up to capacity no matter how big a place you have .

[drummer]

^^ Yes, you will always fill a space. That's the danger.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Well, my parents sister and I never lived in a place as big as 1,200 sq feet until I was 12 (by which point all I needed was a desk with a computer...), so we'll see. I think shit accumulates up to capacity no matter how big a place you have .

very true.

my cousin and his family of 5 live in a giant 4,500 SF mcmansion on a 1/4 acre lot out on the exurban fringe of chicagoland. me and my family of 4 live in a 2,300 SF city condo.

how do we do it?

we simply have way less shit than them.

and for you in a 1,200 SF downtown condo, you'll have even less. it's all doable, you just have to figure out where the balancing point is for you.

we made the jump from west loop to edgewater because we were in a 800 SF 1-bed, and as we accumulated baby crap, we decided that balancing act wasn't going to work for us. so we got a place twice as large out in the neighborhoods for the same price.

with 1,200 SF and 2-beds, you'll be way ahead on the downtown family game compared to where we were when my wife first got pregnant. had we already been in a larger 2-bed at that time, perhaps the hasty jump up to edgewater would've never happened.

[JManc]

We live in a 3,000 s/f house and there's truth about filling it up. Plus the garage...there's shit in there as well. We keep it under control though with routine trips to Goodwill...

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

very true.

my cousin and his family of 5 live in a giant 4,500 SF mcmansion on a 1/4 acre lot out on the exurban fringe of chicagoland. me and my family of 4 live in a 2,300 SF city condo.

how do we do it?

we simply have way less shit than them.

and for you in a 1,200 SF downtown condo, you'll have even less. it's all doable, you just have to figure out where the balancing point is for you.

we made the jump from west loop to edgewater because we were in a 800 SF 1-bed, and as we accumulated baby crap, we decided that balancing act wasn't going to work for us. so we got a place twice as large out in the neighborhoods for the same price.

with 1,200 SF and 2-beds, you'll be way ahead on the downtown family game compared to where we were when my wife first got pregnant. had we already been in a larger 2-bed at that time, perhaps the hasty jump up to edgewater would've never happened.

Yeah, right now my wife and I live in a 650 SF 1BR apartment, so 1200 SF will feel downright palatial. Having a large storage room down the hall is certainly going to help too!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

235 W VB is an awesome building design-wise, but it was definitely built with investor-owners in mind as opposed to live in owners. There are few amenities, which keeps monthly assessments low.

As an owner I have insider info, however, that this is slowly changing. THe association wants to add some features that make it more appealing. For example, there is talk about building out an exercise room. That is helpful not only for live-in owners but for investor owners, as a lot of renters want such facilities in their buildings.

235 VB may have been "off the beaten path" 11 years ago when it was built, but it's growing more valuable every day. Once the Stupid Virus is gone, the job migration towards the West and SW Loop will pick up where it left off. It's also near Willis Tower, OPO, and other booming areas seeing lots of investment. Stay tuned...

Yeah, the location is not bad especially with the new riverwalk section south of VB, but the floor plans are clearly geared for roommates rather than families. The low assessments are a feature, not a bug. As someone not rolling in the dough (yay academia) I don't want to pay for things I rarely use...

[llamaorama]

There are plenty of SFH’s in suburbs of Sunbelt cities that are 1200 sq feet so it’s not so freaky.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

There are plenty of SFH’s in suburbs of Sunbelt cities that are 1200 sq feet so it’s not so freaky.

well yeah, 1200 sq ft is easier in a SFH vs. highrise, who could possibly argue against that point?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

well yeah, 1200 sq ft is easier in a SFH vs. highrise, who could possibly argue against that point?

Yeah, SFH comes with a yard. That's a very big difference.

And in most of the sunbelt, your outdoor living season is significantly longer than it is in the upper Midwest.

My cousin and her family of 4 live in 1,200 SF bungalow in LA (echo park). But they have have a decently-sized yard that more than offsets that for her because she says they're out there whenever the weather allows (which is a lot in sunny Socal). She's told me that it'd be a lot more challenging for them to live in a house that small if they ever moved back to chicagoland.

The importance of one's interior square footage vs. outdoor living space is very proportional to the length/severity of one's winter.