CHICAGO | General Developments

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

because most people would rather pay more than gamble with their safety. "affordable" also means different things to different people.

Median household income in the Chicago area is 68.4k. Standard industry practice for affordable is: (30% of 68.4k)/12 = $1710/month.

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/illinois/chicago/

Those units are in the range of affordable for the typical Chicago household. They aren't affordable for a lot of people, and I agree that you can quibble with whether or not somebody should be spending 30% of their income on housing alone. As it stands, most households are paycheck to paycheck and thus unable to save for retirement -- the single biggest contributor to that problem is housing costs and an industry standard to benchmark affordability that is out of touch with modern reality.

[Goose Island Guru]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I'm sure those are fantastic units; problem is, there is a large subset of the population who simply won't consider living in that part of town.

And therein lies Chicago's age old problem. We have way too much real estate waiting to get "awoken".

Which is worse: "too much" area for the City and outlying neighborhoods being neglected (Chicago) or not enough area for the City and demand driving prices sky high (San Francisco)?

It is the age old problem - neighborhoods like Wicker Park and Logan Square, as recently as 15 years ago, were a hard no for many people. Now they're desirable. This will keep going to Humboldt Park, United Center area, further south, etc., etc. All about timing.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I will have three 2 BD/ 1 BA apartments availible July 1st one block from the California Pink Line for $1,300. I will have two huge 4 BD/ 2 BA available for $2,000. Is that middle or high end of the market to you?

These are totally gut rehabbed, reconstructed units with granite and stainless steel, new 3" oak floors, new tile, new bathrooms, new plumbing, new electric, spray foam insulation, new windows, reconstructed brick (not just tuckpointed, literally torn apart and rebuilt in large sections including putting back the historic facade), etc...

The affordability crisis is a lie, if that's too pricey for you I have a $800/mo 2/1 at Cermak and Albany, but it's small and has a space heater instead of central air.

Hmmm. How long would the Cermak one stay available? I'm super tempted by that price, and I've been dying for a place of my own.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Median household income in the Chicago area is 68.4k. Standard industry practice for affordable is: (30% of 68.4k)/12 = $1710/month.

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/illinois/chicago/

Those units are in the range of affordable for the typical Chicago household. They aren't affordable for a lot of people, and I agree that you can quibble with whether or not somebody should be spending 30% of their income on housing alone. As it stands, most households are paycheck to paycheck and thus unable to save for retirement -- the single biggest contributor to that problem is housing costs and an industry standard to benchmark affordability that is out of touch with modern reality.

I think you need to account for net income. At a gross 68.4K, that would be a net of probably less than 4K a month.

Pulling in barely 3500-4000 and spending half of that on rent+utilities is not affordable, especially with kids. Unless you're one hell of a spendthrift.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Handro

I think you need to account for net income. At a gross 68.4K, that would be a net of probably less than 4K a month.

Pulling in barely 3500-4000 and spending half of that on rent+utilities is not affordable, especially with kids. Unless you're one hell of a spendthrift.

Agreed. Sadly, industry standard uses pre-tax income, rather than take home.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Handro

I think you need to account for net income. At a gross 68.4K, that would be a net of probably less than 4K a month.

Pulling in barely 3500-4000 and spending half of that on rent+utilities is not affordable, especially with kids. Unless you're one hell of a spendthrift.

7.65% FICA
4.95% Illinois income
14.6% Federal (lower if there are kids)

$68,400*72.8%=$49,795/12=$4,150 per month.

And that's worst case, with only the standard deduction filing as a single person and not accounting for Illinois' deduction (because it would only result in an extra $5/month or so). If that's a household number (and I know it is) with multiple deductions/dependents, taxes would be thousands of dollars lower. Sure, it's still a fairly tight budget but ya'll are acting like it's a death-defying feat to survive on that income. It's not. It's fine. The biggest unknown is probably retirement savings, which could eat up over $500/month from this hypothetical family's budget.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by emathias

7.65% FICA
4.95% Illinois income
14.6% Federal (lower if there are kids)

$68,400*72.8%=$49,795/12=$4,150 per month.

And that's worst case, with only the standard deduction filing as a single person and not accounting for Illinois' deduction (because it would only result in an extra $5/month or so). If that's a household number (and I know it is) with multiple deductions/dependents, taxes would be thousands of dollars lower. Sure, it's still a fairly tight budget but ya'll are acting like it's a death-defying feat to survive on that income. It's not. It's fine. The biggest unknown is probably retirement savings, which could eat up over $500/month from this hypothetical family's budget.

I guess if it was that simple. Including deductions like retirement (as you mentioned), healthcare, life insurance, etc. it become even tighter. Hopefully no emergencies pop up for our hypothetical family. Sure it's doable, it would be doable to spend even more than that on rent, if you really want to get technical.

[Kenmore]

The SSP Chicago regulars cherish the myth of the an affordable Chicago and prognosticating about the hypothetical budgets of regular people.

$1,700 a month for granite counter tops in a neighborhood with failing schools and regular gunfire...what a deal!

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

The SSP Chicago regulars cherish the myth of the an affordable Chicago and prognosticating about the hypothetical budgets of regular people.

$1,700 a month for granite counter tops in a neighborhood with failing schools and regular gunfire...what a deal!

I think it is just people talking past eachother.

On one hand, yes Chicago is more affordable than other big cities. On the other hand, if you want a safe community and good schools it is much less affordable.

The rent might be cheap living near the California Pink Line stop, but you are sending your kid to Charles G Hammond Elementary School (rated a 3/10 on Great Schools and 97.2% low income according to CPS).

[JK47]

Originally Posted by emathias

7.65% FICA
4.95% Illinois income
14.6% Federal (lower if there are kids)

$68,400*72.8%=$49,795/12=$4,150 per month.

And that's worst case, with only the standard deduction filing as a single person and not accounting for Illinois' deduction (because it would only result in an extra $5/month or so). If that's a household number (and I know it is) with multiple deductions/dependents, taxes would be thousands of dollars lower. Sure, it's still a fairly tight budget but ya'll are acting like it's a death-defying feat to survive on that income. It's not. It's fine. The biggest unknown is probably retirement savings, which could eat up over $500/month from this hypothetical family's budget.

If both spouses work childcare is going to run anywhere between $1000 to $2000 more more a month per child. Then take out $300 or so for monthly health insurance premiums, $200 for utility bills (power, water, gas), and then lets say $800 for food plus other incidental recurring expenses (internet, phone plan, etc). Gas plus maintenance for a car let's say that'll be $100 per month conservatively. Add another $300 per month if it's leased or financed. At $1500 to $2500 per month rent for two or three bedroom apartments a budget of $4000 per month isn't really going to cut it.

On that kind of budget I'd imagine you'd have to decamp to one of the more affordable suburbs or delay major life events until your income has caught up.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by JK47

If both spouses work childcare is going to run anywhere between $1000 to $2000 more more a month per child. Then take out $300 or so for monthly health insurance premiums, $200 for utility bills (power, water, gas), and then lets say $800 for food plus other incidental recurring expenses (internet, phone plan, etc). Gas plus maintenance for a car let's say that'll be $100 per month conservatively. Add another $300 per month if it's leased or financed. At $1500 to $2500 per month rent for two or three bedroom apartments a budget of $4000 per month isn't really going to cut it.

On that kind of budget I'd imagine you'd have to decamp to one of the more affordable suburbs or delay major life events until your income has caught up.

Please don't put off kids until you can afford it - you can't - you never will. Do it now while you are young and figure it out as you go. LIfe is full of tradeoffs - kids make all of them worth it.

[Goose Island Guru]

Originally Posted by harryc

Please don't put off kids until you can afford it - you can't - you never will. Do it now while you are young and figure it out as you go. LIfe is full of tradeoffs - kids make all of them worth it.

100%

Most people are not diligent enough to spend nothing more when their financial situation improves. At 25, you and your spouse bring home $5,500 a month and decide to hold off on kids. At 30, you're bringing home $7,500 a month, more than enough to start having those kids, but you've since moved into an apartment that's $1,000 more a month and have a car loan at $400 a month.

Now you hold off until you hit 35. You're in an even more expensive apartment and decide to wait. Next thing you know you're too old to have a kid or have to pay for IVF. Not to mention, you're close to 60 by the time your first kid is out of college.

Have the kids at 25-30, you're done with their expenses by the time you hit 50 and your best earning years are in front of you with the least liabilities you've had in a long, long time.

[Via Chicago]

or just dont have kids

[galleyfox]

The correct answer is: Don't have kids unless you have the finances OR a support structure AND you are having kids for the right reasons.

Plenty of poor families successfully raise happy and healthy children with the help of family and friends.

The worst-off families are the ones where the parents have kids because their lives are already a trainwreck, and they think having children will make them feel better about themselves.

[Busy Bee]

eww human offspring gross

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ My wife and I are probably going to start soon and waited until we were over 30, but we plan to crank a few out now to help repopulate Chicago!

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

because most people would rather pay more than gamble with their safety. "affordable" also means different things to different people.

you could pull up a litany of shootings that have happened near Albany/Cermak in the recent past, while keeping in mind shootings are only the most headline grabbing type of quality of life crime someone in such an area would have to content with.

Yeah, but it's a fake news that Albany and Cermak is some sort of violent crime hotspot.

Last year the entire South Lawndale community area had 9 homicides. For comparison West Town had 7, Near North (i.e. River North, Streeterville, etc) had 7, Near West had 7, Humboldt Park had 16, Rogers Park and West Ridge both had 7, etc etc etc.

This is not a war zone, this is not out of line with other "acceptable" areas. The vast majority of neighborhoods in Chicago have a handful of murders a year, a handful of neighborhoods account for the bulk of murders city wide. It's basically just Austin and the adjoining areas and Englewood and the adjoining areas that are free for alls. Everywhere else is either quiet or has less than one murder a month.

So far in 2019 Little Village has two homicides tied with Avondale, Irving Park, West Town, Near North, and the Near West Side (West Loop). I wouldn't go to any of those places if I were you!

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Hmmm. How long would the Cermak one stay available? I'm super tempted by that price, and I've been dying for a place of my own.

It will fill up as soon as I decide to market it. I need to throw a coat of paint on it still so I'm not looking to get someone in until probably June 1st.

Originally Posted by Kenmore

The SSP Chicago regulars cherish the myth of the an affordable Chicago and prognosticating about the hypothetical budgets of regular people.

$1,700 a month for granite counter tops in a neighborhood with failing schools and regular gunfire...what a deal!

Like I said, I will rent you an $800 apartment if you need it. I will rent you a super nice $1300 apartment if you need it. Big bedrooms and all, but you are so obsessed with your lies you will never accept that.

[HomrQT]

- -

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah, but it's a fake news that Albany and Cermak is some sort of violent crime hotspot.

Last year the entire South Lawndale community area had 9 homicides. For comparison West Town had 7, Near North (i.e. River North, Streeterville, etc) had 7, Near West had 7, Humboldt Park had 16, Rogers Park and West Ridge both had 7, etc etc etc.

Agree with your main point that people think the crime in South Lawndale is worse than it actually is. Some of your numbers for other CAs are slightly off for 2018 via the following: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Publi...ijzp-q8t2/data . I do think anywhere downtown deserves an asterisk due to the sheer amount of daily people who aren't residents there (office workers, tourists, etc) being way more than the resident population.

Humboldt Park: 21 homicides
Near West Side: 9 homicides
West Town: 8 homicides
South Lawndale: 8 homicides
Avondale: 6 homicides
Rogers Park: 6 homicides
West Ridge: 6 homicides
Near North Side: 5 homicides
Hyde Park: 4 homicides
Logan Square: 4 homicides
Loop: 4 homicides
Near South Side: 3 homicides
Uptown: 2 homicides
Kenwood: 1 homicide
Lakeview: 1 homicide
Lincoln Park: 1 homicide (on 1/1/2018)
North Center: 1 homicide

The homicide rate last year of Rogers Park and South Lawndale were nearly identical actually - Rogers Park was a little bit higher but not much. Only about 1 per 100K higher than West Town (Ukranian Village, Wicker Park, etc).

But you know, homicides are such a small part of overall crime and in everyday life, you'll probably be more susceptible to other crimes.

Assault
Austin: 1285 per 100K
Humboldt Park: 1095 per 100K
Near South Side: 516.5 per 100K
Rogers Park: 514 per 100K
South Lawndale: 497 per 100K
Uptown: 443 per 100K
Avondale: 423 per 100K
Belmont Cragin: 414 per 100K
Logan Square: 399 per 100K
Hyde Park: 380 per 100K
Lincoln Park: 281 per 100K
Lakeview: 256 per 100K

So it's better than Rogers Park by a little bit and not as good as the others, but also not too much higher than Uptown. Statistically if you are totally OK with Uptown or Rogers Park, there should be no reason to cower in fear about South Lawndale.

Robbery
Austin: 818.8 per 100K
Humboldt Park: 606.1 per 100K
West Town: 343.2 per 100K
Rogers Park: 261.5 per 100K
South Lawndale: 260.5 per 100K
Lincoln Park: 245.2 per 100K
Logan Square: 200.2 per 100K
Lakeview: 191.1 per 100K
Uptown: 182.8 per 100K
West Ridge: 174.5 per 100K

Anyway, totally agree with your point. South Lawndale is not low crime, but it's not that high crime either. I think it's more moderate maybe on the high side but still in the middle.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Goose Island Guru

100%

Most people are not diligent enough to spend nothing more when their financial situation improves. At 25, you and your spouse bring home $5,500 a month and decide to hold off on kids. At 30, you're bringing home $7,500 a month, more than enough to start having those kids, but you've since moved into an apartment that's $1,000 more a month and have a car loan at $400 a month.

Now you hold off until you hit 35. You're in an even more expensive apartment and decide to wait. Next thing you know you're too old to have a kid or have to pay for IVF. Not to mention, you're close to 60 by the time your first kid is out of college.

Have the kids at 25-30, you're done with their expenses by the time you hit 50 and your best earning years are in front of you with the least liabilities you've had in a long, long time.

I don't even want to think about that living in NYC. I'm in my 30s - getting married in a handful of months. I'm sure kids will come 2-4 years later, but damn so expensive. My fiance and I right now could comfortably afford a $1.3M place - but then I talk to one of my coworkers and he tells me how much daycare costs LOL. Crazy stuff - hopefully by the time I have kids, I'll be living in Chicago again and getting an entire SFH for $500K less than what a 2 bedroom condo costs here (and like $800K less if we wanted to be in somewhere like Portage Park or something). I understand we are lucky to be able to afford these things but I'm really questioning now how a lot of people swing this.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Yeah, I'm not saying it's "low crime", I'm saying it's just one of the middle 50% of Chicago neighborhoods that are neither high nor low crime. I mean it's robbery rate is similar to that of Lincoln Park (which obviously attracts that kind of crime because it's a good place to find Chad's and Trixies to stick up). People have this ignorant judgey attitude all the time about this or that neighborhood in Chicago and 95% of the time they literally don't know shit.

That said I literally wrote down the license plates and makes and models of three different heroin dealers cars as they made drops to junkies in front of an abandoned building I'm renovating tonight. I have a direct line to the TAC department and I'm sure those assholes will be getting a surprise traffic stop soon enough.