CHICAGO | General Developments

[Baronvonellis]

Alright, here I'll make it even easier at Lincoln and Peterson 3 bedroom new construction is around $350,000. That's 3 miles from the lake and nowhere near any train transit. On a busy 4 lane street. Hipsters are moving to Humbolt Park despite the crime rates, which has worse crime stats than Bronzeville.

So a place within walking distance to the lake vs. miles to the lake, next to a busy road. Yet, still much more expensive, I'm mean come on lets not sugar coat the reason here.

Originally Posted by emathias

That's not the only reason, and perhaps not even the main reason. Plus, "a block from the lake" on the South Lakefront means, 1 block to a wide railroad plus the wide LSD. On the North Lakefront, there are no Metra tracks, and LSD is often somewhat narrower than on the South Lakefront - not a lot, but when you're walking every bit counts.

Things the North Lakefront has that the South Lakefront doesn't, all of which are shown to drive real estate prices:

1) More consistent, closer access to the Lakefront - South Lakefront between Roosevelt and Hyde Park @ 51st St has 8 access points. North Lakefront between Oak Street and Uptown @ Lawrence has 16.
2) Proximity to the 'L' - people in Oakwood or Kenwood rarely walk to the "L"
3) A density factor that enables a significantly higher number of restaurants and shops within walking distance
4) Lower crime rate, especially a significantly lower recent historical crime rate (the gap is closing, but still exists and used to be very wide indeed)

[the urban politician]

For those of you who like to streetview, a quick trip down State St from 35th St will show you just how much this area is redeveloping.

Of course, that is Park Boulevard, which is mixed income CHA replacement housing. But still, it's a massive new neighborhood being built.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I think some of this "refocusing" on our city is resulting from increased travel to Chicago both nationally and internationally. The most puzzling thing about Chicago is that people simply don't travel there. My English partners have told me that Chicago is like number 5 or 6 on most Brit's priority list when the come to the USA. After having spent 3 weeks in Chicago with me over the past few months they have become just as puzzled as me about this.

Honestly, Chicago's biggest problem is it's location. The city itself is perfectly fine and justifies a visit, but there isn't really much else in proximity. The NE corridor has tons of big cities and quaint seaside towns in close proximity. Miami gets the snowbirds and has the keys and the beaches nearby. SF and LA have the allure of being in CA. The NW have 3 interesting cities and the scenic beauty interspersed.


Chicago has Lake Michigan, which is amazingly to see in person. But, there aren't really any close by lakeside destinations to combine it with. Northern MI is worth a visit, but is many hours car drive from Chicago. Milwaukee, Indianapolis and St. Louis are all fine, but nothing special. In an ideal world, Mackinaw and Traverse City would be just across the lake from Chicago and could be connected via a lakeside train or ferry system.

I really don't know what can be done about that?

I agree trying to attract a diverse mix of middle and high skilled immigrants would be a huge plus. Toronto's cosmopolitan feel is a key piece of its attraction. Again this is easier said than done, especially since Chicago can't impose Canadian style immigration laws.

[bcp]

i'm surprised there are not more travel-by-boat destinations run from chicago...UP, Racine, Milwaukee, etc...high-speed stuff and pleasure cruises.

Or am i misinformed?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Honestly, Chicago's biggest problem is it's location. The city itself is perfectly fine and justifies a visit, but there isn't really much else in proximity. The NE corridor has tons of big cities and quaint seaside towns in close proximity. Miami gets the snowbirds and has the keys and the beaches nearby. SF and LA have the allure of being in CA. The NW have 3 interesting cities and the scenic beauty interspersed.


Chicago has Lake Michigan, which is amazingly to see in person. But, there aren't really any close by lakeside destinations to combine it with. Northern MI is worth a visit, but is many hours car drive from Chicago. Milwaukee, Indianapolis and St. Louis are all fine, but nothing special. In an ideal world, Mackinaw and Traverse City would be just across the lake from Chicago and could be connected via a lakeside train or ferry system.

I really don't know what can be done about that?

I agree trying to attract a diverse mix of middle and high skilled immigrants would be a huge plus. Toronto's cosmopolitan feel is a key piece of its attraction. Again this is easier said than done, especially since Chicago can't impose Canadian style immigration laws.

This is a lazy and idiotic statement. You do realize that 50-60 million people live within a 6-hour drive of Chicago, right? It's the largest 'megaregion' between the U.S. and Canada. Because 5-6 hours driving between LA and SF is TOTALLY different than driving 5-6 hours between Chicago and a slew of other metros..wtf???

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Honestly, Chicago's biggest problem is it's location. The city itself is perfectly fine and justifies a visit, but there isn't really much else in proximity. The NE corridor has tons of big cities and quaint seaside towns in close proximity. Miami gets the snowbirds and has the keys and the beaches nearby. SF and LA have the allure of being in CA. The NW have 3 interesting cities and the scenic beauty interspersed.


Chicago has Lake Michigan, which is amazingly to see in person. But, there aren't really any close by lakeside destinations to combine it with. Northern MI is worth a visit, but is many hours car drive from Chicago. Milwaukee, Indianapolis and St. Louis are all fine, but nothing special. In an ideal world, Mackinaw and Traverse City would be just across the lake from Chicago and could be connected via a lakeside train or ferry system.

I really don't know what can be done about that?

I agree trying to attract a diverse mix of middle and high skilled immigrants would be a huge plus. Toronto's cosmopolitan feel is a key piece of its attraction. Again this is easier said than done, especially since Chicago can't impose Canadian style immigration laws.

I completely disagree with this. In lieu of potentially starting a city vs city thing I'll just say I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Because 5-6 hours driving between LA and SF is TOTALLY different than driving 5-6 hours between Chicago and a slew of other metros..wtf???

Thats why you take HW1 and not I5

Say what you will but the land mass between LA and SF comprises the damn most beautiful terrain in lower 48 if youre smart about how you experience it

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by bcp

i'm surprised there are not more travel-by-boat destinations run from chicago...UP, Racine, Milwaukee, etc...high-speed stuff and pleasure cruises.

Or am i misinformed?

Its not unheard of:

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015...akes/23886053/

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Alright, here I'll make it even easier at Lincoln and Peterson 3 bedroom new construction is around $350,000. That's 3 miles from the lake and nowhere near any train transit. On a busy 4 lane street. Hipsters are moving to Humbolt Park despite the crime rates, which has worse crime stats than Bronzeville.

So a place within walking distance to the lake vs. miles to the lake, next to a busy road. Yet, still much more expensive, I'm mean come on lets not sugar coat the reason here.

I'm not sugar-coating it. There are many reasons for pricing and I never claimed that race wasn't a reason. In fact I only allowed that only "perhaps" it wasn't the primary reason which, in case English isn't your first language, means that I believe it probably IS the primary reason. I just don't believe it's the ONLY reason. So don't make me into some strawman to make your own points while ignoring other factors.

Hipsters move to Humboldt Park because it's cheap and next to expensive areas. Peterson and Lincoln is right next to the lovely parks with the North Shore Channel Trail - not the Lakefront, but still a nice park. I also specifically mentioned Oakland and Kenwood, not Bronzeville. Zoom in with Google Maps around Lincoln/Peterson and count the number of businesses with 1/2 mile of there. Do the same with Kenwood and Oakland. And then tell me there isn't a non-racial quantitative difference between the two areas that a lot of people would be willing to pay for.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by sentinel

This is a lazy and idiotic statement. You do realize that 50-60 million people live within a 6-hour drive of Chicago, right? It's the largest 'megaregion' between the U.S. and Canada. Because 5-6 hours driving between LA and SF is TOTALLY different than driving 5-6 hours between Chicago and a slew of other metros..wtf???

Originally Posted by rlw777

I completely disagree with this. In lieu of potentially starting a city vs city thing I'll just say I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

LOL!

YIKES! Sorry for posting. I wasn't criticizing Chicago at all. I was SPECIFICALLY replying to someone who mentioned that Chicago ranks lower among US cities for international tourists than its size and attributes would dictate. I was simply stating that my general sense was that there wasn't as much in close proximity to appeal to an international tourist, relative to some other places in the US. I can't think of a city within 5-6 hours from Chicago that would have the tourist cache of SF or LA. The world has some many interesting places for tourists to see that a lot of very nice places are going to fall by the wayside.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

YIKES! Sorry for posting. I wasn't criticizing Chicago at all. I was SPECIFICALLY replying to someone who mentioned that Chicago ranks lower among US cities than its size and attributes would dictate. I was simply stating that my general sense was that there wasn't as much in close proximity to appeal to an international tourist, relative to some other places in the US. The world has some many interesting places for tourists to see a lot over very nice places are going to fall by the wayside.

Well, that's because of shitty midwestern marketing pitting State after State instead of recognizing the beauty and opportunities of our region if we present a unified message.

I posted a thread about this concept a while back, to lukewarm reviews. But I still think the "Lake Michigan Coast" brand is a great idea to present to the world.

[marothisu]

I think the problem is that cities near Chicago do not have as much of a cool factor than some cities on the East and West Coasts. Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit and even Minneapolis are not in the same league as Boston, DC, Los Angeles, San Diego, and even Philadelphia.

And while true, I don't think you can fault Chicago with that itself. Everyone is different though so not everyone wants to visit a DC type of city all the time and is fine with Door County. However, I'd bet that the "majority" rules the other way.

[the urban politician]

^ I'll repost the first post from that thread that I linked to:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The title of this thread is an example of a slogan that could be used for the concept that I am about to lay out.

Just yesterday I watched another one of those “visit the Gulf Coast” commercials, and it got me thinking. The “gulf coast” commercials are a joint effort by the states of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi to attract tourists to the gulf coast area to recreate. They are really well done commercials and certainly compel one to take a serious look at planning a vacation down there.

So what if a similar effort were made by a colloboration of states in the midwest? Specifically, I am thinking about Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Brand it something like “spend your summer on the Lake Michigan coast”. There are too many attractions to count, but some that come to mind that can be highlighted:

1. Door County, Wisconsin
2. Milwaukee dining, architecture, lakefront beaches, ethnic fairs and the world-famous Summerfest
3. Lighthouses on Lake Michigan
4. There are 3 very good summer ethnic festivals in Racine, Wisconsin: Greekfest, Armenian fest, and Italian festival
5. Chicago area attractions: this is of course the motherlode of them all, with an almost countless list of activities, but music festivals, Ravinia festival, street art and ethnic fairs, shopping, architecture, dining, musuems, nightlife, boat tours and boat parties, etc etc come to mind
6. Indiana dunes, casinos/resorts in and around Michigan city
7. The cute lakefront towns on the western shore of Michigan, such as the Havens, Holland, Saugatuck with boating, boutique shopping, restaurants
8. Southwest Michigan wineries
9. Upper peninsula Michigan for more of a “getaway” with camping, beautiful beaches, hiking through natural state Parks, freshly caught whitefish, friendly people
10. Throw Mackinac Island in there as well as a rather unique attraction.

I really think that with a more concerted, regional effort, something wonderful could come to fruition if the marketing approach was right.

Anybody want to expand on this or share their thoughts?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Well, that's because of shitty midwestern marketing pitting State after State instead of recognizing the beauty and opportunities of our region if we present a unified message.

How can we have unified marketing when we have this kind of rhetoric between states

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2893

hell, we cant even get Choose Chicago/Enjoy Illinois offices on the same damn page

[lu9]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

How can we have unified marketing when we have this kind of rhetoric between states

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2893

hell, we cant even get Choose Chicago/Enjoy Illinois offices on the same damn page

Wow. Thanks for sharing. I hadn't seen this blasphemous comment. Why go so extreme with it? Common sense would tell you Indiana could come in handy and it is probably unwise to be burning Skyways...

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

How can we have unified marketing when we have this kind of rhetoric between states

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2893

hell, we cant even get Choose Chicago/Enjoy Illinois offices on the same damn page

That's just ridiculous. If we create an environment that's attractive to Indiana businesses, should we help them make the move? Sure. But should we be declaring war against Indiana? Absolutely not, it makes no sense. No state should have a stated goal to harm another state, it hurts us all.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by emathias

No state should have a stated goal to harm another state, it hurts us all.

true enough, but cheeselandia and those hoosier dingleberries started all of this interstate job-poaching nonsense in the first place. it's not in chicago's DNA to back down from a fight.

"You wanna get Indiana? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Indiana!"

[emathias]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I think the problem is that cities near Chicago do not have as much of a cool factor than some cities on the East and West Coasts. Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Detroit and even Minneapolis are not in the same league as Boston, DC, Los Angeles, San Diego, and even Philadelphia.

And while true, I don't think you can fault Chicago with that itself. Everyone is different though so not everyone wants to visit a DC type of city all the time and is fine with Door County. However, I'd bet that the "majority" rules the other way.

I think St. Louis is as cool or cooler than San Diego and in some ways could hold its own against Philly. Heck, I dislike Indianapolis and I think it's in the same league as San Diego once you're past the beaches (and LA has beaches, so people don't really go from LA to SD for beaches). Indy doesn't have Tijuana, though, I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

true enough, but cheeselandia and those hoosier dingleberries started all of this interstate job-poaching nonsense in the first place. it's not in chicago's DNA to back down from a fight.

"You wanna get Indiana? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Indiana!"

I saw that movie and if I remember right, things don't turn out well for Indianalphonse ...

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'll repost the first post from that thread that I linked to:

summer weather vs winter weather

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by emathias

Zoom in with Google Maps around Lincoln/Peterson and count the number of businesses with 1/2 mile of there. Do the same with Kenwood and Oakland.

This is the only thing that matters. Neighborhoods that have been completely gutted of any amenity, or discretionary business will always be at a massive disadvantage until the market forces an influx of residents to these areas.

I love the architecture of the South lake shore, I always imagine myself rehabbing a grand old home on Michigan Ave or MLK, but more than anything else, the reason driving me away is that there is simply nothing there. If I lived in the 4500 South block of Michigan Ave where exactly do I go to get groceries? Where do I run to pickup some toothpaste when I run out? Fresh produce? What are my restaurant options? Bars? Galleries? Where do I go to buy clothing/electronics/housewares? A haircut?

I would pretty much have to go to Hyde Park or Bridgeport for almost all of those things. And neither of those are exactly a casual stroll away.


Meanwhile... Humboldt Park, Avondale, NW Logan Square, Pilsen, and Bridgeport have all of those things. Sure, they don't have the lakefront, but daily needs are far more important. And in the case of 4500 South Michigan, a walk to the lakefront is fairly daunting... 1.7 miles down bombed out 43rd Street. Bronzeville, Grand Boulevard, East Garfield Park, these areas need walkable retail, and need it bad.