CHICAGO | General Developments

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Is this building sagging at the top.

Strange that the windows are perfectly aligned. Maybe they were knocked out after the sag happened? Are those diagonal pieces of metal supposed to help with the sag? Any experts on this stuff?

No, it' just a long building.

To maintain one slope from front to rear, would leave you with a 6 ft cockloft.

They made the roof slope to a drain in the middle and laid the side parapet to match.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^^^ (Petey) Why is that surprising? We have relatively few supply constraints, lots of easily developable and re-developable acreage.....it's actually in many ways a great advantage for Chicago, and one that will be reduced only fairly slowly over time, relatively.....

[Mr Downtown]

The missing element for Chinese investors in Chicago is growing demand. This is a city that only grew by 82 people last year.



Even if a California or New York condo is more money, you have some assurance that fundamental market forces will keep its value growing at least with inflation, and probably with the rate of population growth.

[J_M_Tungsten]

No wonder Seattle is building so much.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The missing element for Chinese investors in Chicago is growing demand. This is a city that only grew by 82 people last year.



Even if a California or New York condo is more money, you have some assurance that fundamental market forces will keep its value growing at least with inflation, and probably with the rate of population growth.

A very flawed argument. Property values are hardly related to population numbers. They are related to who wants to live there, and how a place is perceived. Hence Lincoln Park's rising property values despite a falling population.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The missing element for Chinese investors in Chicago is growing demand. This is a city that only grew by 82 people last year.



Even if a California or New York condo is more money, you have some assurance that fundamental market forces will keep its value growing at least with inflation, and probably with the rate of population growth.

That number should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Mr Downtown]

^Why? What about the Census Bureau methodology was flawed? In what way is it not indicative of the long-term trend?

Metropolitan Chicago remains caught in an ultra-slow growth mode, with the region adding just an estimated 23,230 residents [in 2013].

. . . the Chicago Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area grew to 9,537,289 in the year ended July 1 [2013] — a growth rate of less than 0.3 percent. The CMSA includes not only the inner region but portions of southeast Wisconsin and northwest Indiana.

That's about the same rate as the 30,178 and 22,776 annual growth in the two prior years since the 2010 census, and an indication that, for whatever reason, the Chicago region remains pretty much caught in the economic recession that followed the subprime mortgage crisis.

With just under 70,000 more people since 2010, the CMSA markedly trails booming Sun Belt cites such as Houston, Dallas and Phoenix as well as two other cities that arguably are the Windy City's peers: New York and Los Angeles. The New York CMSA added 382,000 people since 2010, while Los Angeles added 303,000, according to [Census B]ureau estimates.

The Houston metropolitan area added about 138,000 people [in 2013], the most in the nation. Of the nation's 381 metropolitan areas, 289 gained population [in 2013], with an average hike of 0.9 percent, while 92 lost population.

Crain's Chicago Business, March 27, 2014

[the urban politician]

I'm not disputing the census. I just don't know what that has to do with property values in Bucktown or rents in Streeterville.

A better list of indicators would be household incomes, job growth, and foreign investment.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The missing element for Chinese investors in Chicago is growing demand. This is a city that only grew by 82 people last year.



Even if a California or New York condo is more money, you have some assurance that fundamental market forces will keep its value growing at least with inflation, and probably with the rate of population growth.

Why not? And Columbus is an even better investment opportunity than San Fransisco it appears!

Obviously--it literally should go without saying--that Chicago's core has been the fastest or one of the fastest growing areas in the country in the last decade and Chicago's poor, rust-belty areas have seen some of the largest population declines. It is literally booming and appreciating faster than just about any other North American city, save Toronto and New York. It is jejune and insipid to suggest that an area with a booming population isn't worthy of investment because there is a shrinking population nearby. In fact, the only reason a lettered person might suggest that's the case is to be a stick-in-the-mud.

Chinese and Russian investment goes to New York and San Francisco because they are a known commodity that is viewed as cash among people who are trying to secret money away from autocratic regimes. If you want to put cash in a condo, you don't have to do any research or take any leaps of faith to make that transaction in Manhattan. The path to get money in or out is extremely well-worn. Some people invest in Chicago or Seattle; many more of them hide money in New York. Miami has a different relationship in that it's viewed as a culturally friendly gateway to the U.S. by all of Latin America. If you're a Columbian executive, "I'm buying a place in Miami" is something people expect you to say. "I'm buying a place in Denver", would be followed with requests to borrow an atlas.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Why? What about the Census Bureau methodology was flawed? In what way is it not indicative of the long-term trend?

Metropolitan Chicago remains caught in an ultra-slow growth mode, with the region adding just an estimated 23,230 residents [in 2013].

. . . the Chicago Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area grew to 9,537,289 in the year ended July 1 [2013] — a growth rate of less than 0.3 percent. The CMSA includes not only the inner region but portions of southeast Wisconsin and northwest Indiana.

That's about the same rate as the 30,178 and 22,776 annual growth in the two prior years since the 2010 census, and an indication that, for whatever reason, the Chicago region remains pretty much caught in the economic recession that followed the subprime mortgage crisis.

With just under 70,000 more people since 2010, the CMSA markedly trails booming Sun Belt cites such as Houston, Dallas and Phoenix as well as two other cities that arguably are the Windy City's peers: New York and Los Angeles. The New York CMSA added 382,000 people since 2010, while Los Angeles added 303,000, according to [Census B]ureau estimates.

The Houston metropolitan area added about 138,000 people [in 2013], the most in the nation. Of the nation's 381 metropolitan areas, 289 gained population [in 2013], with an average hike of 0.9 percent, while 92 lost population.

Crain's Chicago Business, March 27, 2014

No, the Census numbers may be right (who knows), but in reality it's a very simple and superficial way to look at the health of a city. What is happening in Chicago right now is a growing population that makes a healthy amount of money per year. Do you think the fact that housing prices have been rising some multiple areas as well as rent prices and new luxury buildings being built is some kind of accident? Rental prices downtown are higher than they've ever been for a reason - people aren't just building luxury high rises and sitting on them.They're actually renting out and it's because the population of people that can afford them and actually want them is increasing enough to warrant a good amount of the construction.

Between 2010 and 2013, the census estimates that Chicago gained 15,000 households total. However, there was a loss of 12,000 households making less than $25K per year. BUT there was an increase of 28,000 households making at least $100K per year. This growth of 6 figure earning households, relative to overall household change, is one of the top 5 in the US right now. The percent change in this time is even greater than San Francisco believe it or not and even slightly ahead of Houston (and far ahead of cities like Dallas, Phoenix, etc). NYC and LA are above Chicago, but Chicago is above most other US cities in this regard if you take the time to calculate it.

What is going on right now in Chicago is not that much different than a few other cities. There is a demographic shift. In come in the people making at least a decent salary and out goes the lower class. In other cities, it's much more noticeable. In Chicago, it's not if you're naive enough to just look at an overall population of a city that's almost 3 million people and think it actually gives you an entire story of what's happening. However, if you pay close enough attention to the economic news, you'll start to see the shift. More white collar jobs coming in, and people who were doing more factory, industrial, manufacturing, etc types of blue collar jobs out and moving elsewhere. It's not an accident that Chicago is currently the third fastest growing market for tech related jobs after Houston and Seattle. Even 5 years ago, this wasn't even CLOSE to reality. It's come on strong in the last few years. There is also a fast growing professional services (i.e. consulting) industry - it was big before but it's growing even more now.

Also between 2010 and 2013, the US Census estimates that the median household and family incomes in Chicago increased by around 5-10%. Think a little bit and dig deeper into the numbers. No legitimate economist or demographer, or even serious investor ever only looked at overall population and thought they knew what was going on in a city just based off of that.

[Ryanrule]

shedding low income people on public support and bringing in young high earners is not a problem.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by marothisu

No, the Census numbers may be right (who knows), but in reality it's a very simple and superficial way to look at the health of a city.

It's also a crummy metric to gauge investor interest.

Chicago's cap rates have plummeted in all sectors, meaning that investors need less roi here than other geographies.

They are on par with Nyc, Boston, LA etc (except Multi Fam Urban in the Bay area/Silicon Valley) and they are still trending down in all sectors except hotels.

[wierdaaron]

Here's the answer to my oft-asked question of how a fast food burger joint would be integrated into the lobby of the Chicago Athletic Association.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Senior Center on Halsted (Gensler)

[emathias]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Is this building sagging at the top?



Strange that the windows are perfectly aligned. Maybe they were knocked out after the sag happened? Are those diagonal pieces of metal supposed to help with the sag? Any experts on this stuff?

I'm not an expert, so these are non-expert statements:

I don't think that's a sag, I think it's designed for the roof to drain toward a central drain. It's not super-common, but it's not unheard of. The black metal are to tie the brick walls to each other to support the floors, to prevent outward bowing, not sagging.

[ChiTownWonder]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Senior Center on Halsted (Gensler)

I walk by this building alot. My favourite part is when you are north of the building looking south, you only see the green elements, then when you are south looking north you see the blue elements, kinda cool design.

[Via Chicago]

i generally like that although i wish the base was consistent with the rest of the design

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

shedding low income people on public support and bringing in young high earners is not a problem.

Yes, it's a problem as people don't need to be pushed out of their homes. The city needs to be made up of all aspects and incomes of people. That comment was pretty yuppified and demeaning of those who aren't as successful and wealthy. Those individuals have to go somewhere and the accessibility, transportation, and convenience that the city offers is better than anywhere else.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Yes, it's a problem as people don't need to be pushed out of their homes. The city needs to be made up of all aspects and incomes of people. That comment was pretty yuppified and demeaning of those who aren't as successful and wealthy. Those individuals have to go somewhere and the accessibility, transportation, and convenience that the city offers is better than anywhere else.

I agree with you. Economics are a multilevel game, though, and putting the burden of subsidy entirely on the city doesn't work. Ideally it would be a national program, but even a state level one would be workable. Putting in place a system where people can shirk a tax obligation by moving to the suburbs voluntarily because they can afford to doesn't help the remaining poor, and leaves the city in an impossible situation as we've seen.

[george]

6/06

606/Bloomingdale Trail is open
West Lawndale trailhead, stretches 2.7mi to Ashland Ave.