CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^Until the state/Chicago budget crisis is resolved, until the underfunded pension issue for both the state/Chicago is resolved, and until a lot of socio-economic issues in the most blighted and neglected communities in Chicago are stabilized, there will never be a large net-positive influx of people moving into Chicago (or Cook county, for that matter). Increased development due to zoning modifications can only do so much, sadly.

True, but again - it's not proportional in economics. Not everyone who comes into the city has the same earning/buying power as who left. And while it's not going to be a huge change, it could be sizable.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

True, but again - it's not proportional in economics. Not everyone who comes into the city has the same earning/buying power as who left. And while it's not going to be a huge change, it could be sizable.

True, to a point. I think sometimes people forget that those individuals or families in lower income brackets who leave for cheaper cities (or cheaper surrounding suburbs) still maintain a large purchasing power which is being ignored, somewhat. What good is it having just higher income earners/higher income bracket demos when you've completed priced-out everyone else/the majority, who happen to be below a certain threshold? Trickle-down economics don't work to begin with, so then what happens when everyone below a certain threshold has to move out of Chicago for Cicero, or worst-case scenario, Atlanta or suburban Indy?

If the baseline quality of life issues for 'Average Joe or Jonelle in Chicago' are not being addressed, then what's being created? A solely plutocratic City-state where everyone else is relegated to the provinces? Frankly, I don't want to see Chicago become like Monaco.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ I think many of us recognize your difficulty here: you're completely ignoring the forest for the trees - no, not even the trees - you're mixing it up entirely within the weeds........the forest misses you, at least acknowledge her existence and say "hi" once in a while (no, clearly the forest isn't everything, but it's far from nothing as well, and your approach here needs a good dose of forest to rebalance - come out from the thorny underbrush, old friend)....

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by sentinel

True, to a point. I think sometimes people forget that those individuals or families in lower income brackets who leave for cheaper cities (or cheaper surrounding suburbs) still maintain a large purchasing power which is being ignored, somewhat. What good is it having just higher income earners/higher income bracket demos when you've completed priced-out everyone else/the majority, who happen to be below a certain threshold? Trickle-down economics don't work to begin with, so then what happens when everyone below a certain threshold has to move out of Chicago for Cicero, or worst-case scenario, Atlanta or suburban Indy?

It's not being ignored, but at the same time their purchasing power is not the same as someone who makes double what they do. Even if you had 10,000 people who made double what another group did on average but 5000 of them spent the same as the people who made half as much as them (half the percentage), you'd still see a positive economic impact from that new group. Or should I say a lot more positive than people think. I'm talking strictly about tax revenue at this point. And yes, when people are spending more money, the businesses make more money. It's up to them how to manage that money though which is one reason trickle down doesn't always work in practice.


Obviously keeping everyone is the most optimal and I'm not saying otherwise. All I'm saying is that just because you add 100 people doesn't mean that the economic impact would be the same from adding 100 people of the previous group. You could have 5000 people who come into the city and make $250K/year and love to spend money and 25% of them buy/buy and build expensive property. The economic impact from that, even if 10,000 people leave and your net is -5000 might still see positives for the city. A previous page had an example of mine that wasn't terribly far fetched which showed that. People need to start thinking in a more complex manor when dealing with economics. Economics are not so simple all the time.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^^ I think many of us recognize your difficulty here: you're completely ignoring the forest for the trees - no, not even the trees - you're mixing it up entirely within the weeds........the forest misses you, at least acknowledge her existence and say "hi" once in a while (no, clearly the forest isn't everything, but it's far from nothing as well, and your approach here needs a good dose of forest to rebalance - come out from the thorny underbrush, old friend)....

Good God Sam, I expect more from you. You're argument is what, exactly?? Stop trying to be Mike Royko.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ you know that was a response to marothisu, right??

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ you know that was a response to marothisu, right??

No I didn't, it wasn't clear who you were responding to.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ OK, sorry - so let it be clear.

Also, just to play it super-safe: You know I wasn't really making an ecological argument, correct?

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ OK, sorry - so let it be clear.

Also, just to play it super-safe: You know I wasn't really making an ecological argument, correct?

No worries, although I love weed(s), er..

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ you know that was a response to marothisu, right??

You actually missed my point. Especially when I said that losing people is not the most optimal thing and obviously you want to keep everyone, but that wasn't even my point even though I already believe that losing people sucks.

However, you're missing the other point made that it's not proportional. if you don't understand that, then you shouldn't ever be talking about Economics. Anybody who thinks that adding X number of people is automatically going to be proportional to the previous group is a complete neophyte, especially in a big city with so much turnover of population (and yes, that goes for growing cities like LA, Houston, and NYC).

[the urban politician]

....So I was able to check out the interior of the Cold Storage project (ie Googleplex) in the West Loop yesterday.

That place is going to be rad.

[BVictor1]

St. Dominick's demolition...

07/30/15

[pilsenarch]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Tom Servo too... and marothisu...

regardless of whether Chicago is 3, 4, 5 or whatever in the count, we will always have a unique concentrated urban environment with amenities (uhh, lake?) public infrastructure and transportation system that is just about impossible to recreate... particularly from a mosquito infested Texas suburban sprawl like Houston...

Chicago is in the midst of redefining itself... somebody posted recently some stats on #of empty units, empty lots, etc... that's concerning, but that is the old definition of Chicago where nobody wanted to live in filthy, noisy downtown...

That, as we are all aware of, is drastically changing and as it does, we need to keep this in the forefront of our planning minds as the city inevitably starts to ever-so-slowly expand back into those abandoned neighborhoods...

[Kenmore]

Chicago should see a massive boom when sea level rise and climate change renders large swaths of America uninhabitable in 50-100 years, it's unavoidable at this point.

[stevevance]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Not quite true. Schools, churches, libraries, fire houses and cemeteries. are permitted as of right in all R districts. Police stations and crematoriums are a special use in all R districts.
Hospitals, colleges, community centers and consulates all require a min RT4.

Thanks, I updated my post.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

That, as we are all aware of, is drastically changing and as it does, we need to keep this in the forefront of our planning minds as the city inevitably starts to ever-so-slowly expand back into those abandoned neighborhoods...

IF the city can add more jobs, as they've kind of been doing in some spaces, and make it accelerate, we'd probably see a little of this happen. My friend in Dallas was talking about how he's known a bunch of people leave for NYC from Dallas who will live in dangerous areas of the Bronx because they can't afford anything else but got jobs in NYC and want to be there.

We won't be like that, but would I be surprised in 10 years to see a place like Washington Park emerge (and it actually does have a little action right now)? Not entirely.

[sentinel]

Crain's has an article about what Rush is planning on doing with that 11 acres on the old Malcolm X college site: apparently, they want to build a "state-of-the-art medical school and student housing." Hmmmmmmm.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

Chicago should see a massive boom when sea level rise and climate change renders large swaths of America uninhabitable in 50-100 years, it's unavoidable at this point.

uh... ok

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

uh... ok

Well, they're not entirely wrong - being pretty far inland will have more advantages in the future than perhaps now. Also, it doesn't hurt being right on the banks of the largest freshwater system in the world; That will be an even bigger factor that rising ocean levels.

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

uh... ok

it's pretty straight forward science at this point, chicago just has to tread water in the meantime