An equivalent condo, non luxury but OK, in my neighborhood of Manhattan would be minimum of $750K but could easily go up to closer to $1M. Here's something comparable in size near where I live.

https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...4_M39757-75753

Though you could get lucky and find something for around $650K:
https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...4_M36881-20707

Equivalent of the price might be in say Astoria - which is a great neighborhood, like a more diverse Lakeview, but further away from Manhattan than Lakeview is to downtown:
https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...6_M43325-15528

Or maybe in Jackson Heights which is even further away from Manhattan than Astoria is:
https://www.realtor.com/realestatean...2_M34236-69136



Chicago is such a better deal it's not even funny. I can get a nice 2 bed, 2 bath 1600+ sq ft condo overlooking the lake in Edgewater near the Red Line and Whole Foods for around or under $300K. You can't find that good of a deal in NYC. I have a co-worker who is helping his father find a house in the Bronx - he told me he was shocked because he literally can't find a single family home anywhere in the Bronx for under $650K or $700K.

Eh - yes and no. The only reason I knew it was in Chicago was because they showed the Lou Mitchell's sign inside and I know what Lou Mitchell's is. Then they are eating and say something about "they never left Chicago!" which doesn't mean anything - they could be anywhere in the world talking about someone who never left Chicago. The episode doesn't really actually say it. My girlfriend has never lived in Chicago (only visited) and while we were watching this, she was skeptical it was actually Chicago until they started showing the river high rise wall in the background and she recognized the plaza at River Point when the main character walks out on it "HEY! We've been there!"

I watched them all. Before I started, I hadn't known they were partly filmed here so it was like a little extra bonus for me. About a third of them seem to be filmed in Chicago. It's nice to see Chicago showing up in so much film these days. When I first moved here it was fairly rare but now it's become much more common, almost certainly due to the studios in the southwest side. Even with the tax credits, it's got to be some of the cheapest publicity Chicago can get, even when Chicago isn't as in-your-face as in the Dick Wolf series. In New York, the Law & Order series' singlehandedly kept a lot of actors eating, and if the Chicago shows have enough staying power I would hope they could benefit local actors in much the same way, perhaps enabling more actors to stick around instead of having to move to New York or LA too actually make a career of acting. I don't think we're quite there yet, but it could happen if things keep going.

From today's Crain's Chgo Business:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...h-america-says

70 cranes in Toronto? That is a TON.

How is NYC not totally owning that list? Seems way off

Can anyone post the list, im not subscribed as of now. Or is that not allowed?

It is way off...I don't know what their caveat is, but I can think of at least 9 cranes just in Queens at the moment. If I had to guess the number of active cranes in NYC right now, I'd put it >100

Just google the title of the article to bypass the login wall...

If this is by the same people as the last report like this, then they just arbitrarily exclude cities like New York and Miami, thereby making the entire thing absolutely pointless.

Miami and New York both 100% without a doubt have more residential tower cranes in operation, at least double Chicago.

Miami and NYC eclipsing Chicago makes sense, but I was surprised by Toronto. They must be erecting entire highrise neighborhoods over there. Seattle also makes sense, I assume a lot of that is Amazon related. If Chicago wins HQ2, it will be fun to see what that does to our tower crane count.

I thought Chicago was Building the second highest number of high rises in the US?

toronto currently has 27 500+ foot towers U/C , with a further 83 proposed!

yeah, they've gone full-blown skyscraper building boom up there in the great white north.

if that pace keeps up, toronto will be passing chicago up in number of 500+ footers sometime in the middle of the next decade.

And every single one of them looks exactly the same, too! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

many of them do have a "toronto condo tower" look, but there are some real stunners mixed in as well.

i really love the structural expressionism of The One and CIBC Square, both currently U/C.

i'd love to see some stuff along those lines in chicago.

Not to mention the most overbuilt bubble market in north america...i highly doubt its sustainable

Lol Toronto's skyscrapers are a joke. Here's a good documentary that goes into depth on the mishaps of the condo industry there and what over building does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMtjf0rYlQ4

"It spiraled out of control and it spiraled out of control because the city hall never had the power to say no"

:runaway:

Wow, that's insane. Definitely puts our boom into perspective. Still impressive, but pales in comparison to our northern neighbor.

I would imagine most of these new buildings are residential/condos/apartments. I wonder how that can be sustained... is Toronto really seeing such high levels of population growth? If so, that's quite enviable.

yes.

city proper toronto is currently growing by roughly 25,000 people/year.

Impressive. We were losing a bit less than that per year last decade. Lets hope we can turn that around this census or next.

I realize that population is not all that important (we are importing wealthy households, not people) but it still baffles me that the third largest region in the richest nation on the planet, whose GDP is among the highest among regions in the world, can’t manage to gain people.

But whatever, I give up trying to understand these things. Just keep blaming the weather...

I'm not sure I understand it either. Having lived here for over 15 years it seems like downtown gets more and more crowded every year with a very noticeable difference in the last 2~3 years. I'd love to see a heat map of +/- population change per neighborhood because they all seem to be popping. I'm sure things are different on the south and west sides, which is a whole other, incredibly important conversation.

Wow, that is impressive. What is mainly driving that? 20-30 something’s want a hip urban center, and are moving in from the outer areas in droves?

Toronto (like Vancouver) is still seeing strong immigration flows, and some brain drain from the Hamilton-Niagara industrial corridor.

In Chicago, Latino immigration for several decades blinded us to the loss of African-Americans. That flow of migrants slowed to a trickle during the Great Recession.

When we look at downtown construction cranes and Brown Line crowding and shiny residential highrises and people like us, it keeps us from noticing the lights quietly going out, one after another after another, in traditional small factories and warehouses all through the South Side and older suburbs.

I believe the numbers quoted in the article are residential only. 85% to 90% of Toronto cranes are for residential only projects (and have been for 15 years) though that ratio may change once the ~14 underground stops on the Eglinton line are excavated (2 cranes each?).

Nearly everything in NYC will be in their Mixed Use category due to some kind of retail at ground level.

The below document doesn't contain per-city numbers but you can kinda see what they're doing in the continent summary graph.

http://assets.rlb.com/production/201...rane-Index.pdf

Video is a few years old but I just watched it. Seems like some difficulties ahead with some of those poorly constructed highrises. Thanks for sharing.

Well, immigrants aren’t coming in and buying condos, for the most part. So either wealthy foreigners are buying real estate to park their money, or Toronto has a big bubble on their hands (or a bit of both).

The great news for Chicago is that we probably don’t have that much of a bubble on our hands compared to other places

Well maybe if all of theirs get built and very few of ours, but currently we hold like a 100 to 25 lead on +500 foot tall buildings. Their growth rate is impressive though

We get thousands of people moving to the better neighborhoods yearly now, but as was already stated by someone else, African Americans have been flooding to the Suburbs and out of state for the last 20 years at a ridiculous pace. It will slow down eventually though

Anyone who doesn't understand Chicago's population loss hasn't stepped foot on the south and west sides in years. While you have growing parts of the South Side, such as Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Bronzeville, and maybe Pullman seeing some growth and resurgence, huge swaths of the south side are becoming barren.

This city has serious and fundamental problems that are being covered to an extent by big private investment. In areas that don't have that, there's not much else to keep things going.

No we weren't. Chicago's actual overall population net loss was estimated at sometime between 2000/2001 and 2004. The US Census with the exception of one year has been estimating Chicago's population at between 2.7 and 2.8 million since 2005. Complete myth based off of lazy investigation and basing off of one year of weird data, and Chicago was not the only city that was over estimated for this weird year (2009 - more on that later).

SOURCE: United Status Census American Community Survey (1 year survey), table S0101
https://factfinder.census.gov

2005: 2,701,926
2006: 2,749,283
2007: 2,737,996
2008: 2,741,455,
2009: 2,850,502
2010: 2,698,831 (estimate - the actual census was 2,695,598)
2011: 2,707,123
2012: 2,714,844
2013: 2,718,789
2014: 2,722,407
2015; 2,720,556
2016: 2,704,965

I mean, did people seriously believe the 2009 number? Want to know who else was over estimated by a TON of people? Houston by over 150,000 people, NYC by something like 200,000 people, etc. All of these places magically jumped up a few hundred thousand people from 2008's estimate only to go back down to near 2008's estimate for the 2010 Decennial Census. You basically have to throw the 2009 number out of the window if you are actually looking at loss information and as you can see above, Chicago's population has been stagnant between 2.7 and 2.75 million people for 11 of the last 12 estimates. In other words, even the US Census believes that most of the population net loss for Chicago was before 2005 and has been pretty even ever since.

And yes, south side in some areas continues to lose people. The difference between now and then is that there are other communities outside of downtown which are gaining in population whereas back then that wasn't really true.

But there's also a conscious effort to try and rebuild the for example, the south side. Most recently the proposed Red Line extension and the new under construction library at Altgeld Gardens.

Not the mention the 3 library housing developments that just broke ground on Sunday (not on south side, but in the west).

Incorrect.

Including U/C towers, chicago currently has a lead of 121 - 78 over toronto in terms of 500+ footers

They're catching up really damn fast, with 83 more currently proposed.

Its not the weather. Minneapolis and Boston have similarly crappy weather but they are growing at a steady pace.

The state, county and municipal tax environment is the main reason, I would wager. People gripe about being overtaxed, and wanting to move to Indiana/Wisconsin as they always do, but the main reason is how anti competitive the tax structure makes Illinois. It's anti business (or at the least, makes the state appear to be anti business in the eyes of employers) and job creation lags other Midwestern states. Population always follows jobs. We need more of the latter to get more of the former.

The reputation of rampant crime and the perception that Chicago is not a sophisticated global cosmopolitan city with a trendy identity is what's holding us back on population growth. Our cold weather is often exaggerated but I don't think that keeps people away more than other cold cities.

Undoubtedly because of their low, low taxes. :shrug:

Toronto's construction boom (Montreal is having one that's even more puzzling) is, as I understand it, largely the result of Canadian immigration law. Immigrants can get Canadian citizenship if they show a certain amount of job-creating investment, and building construction is one of the easiest ways to do that.

But Chicago is growing at rates comparable with the "popular" cities if you look at the popular parts of Chicago and/or apply certain demographic controls. The reputation of being unhip is just as fallacious as the reputation for being a murder-per-capita capital.

Minnesota and Massachusetts are in no way low tax, but neither have a ugly state budget crisis, and both have investment grade credit ratings (AA+ and above).

Illinois is already a high tax state, and one that is poised to substantially increase its tax burden due to its out of control pension debt that cannot be diminished due to the language in the state constitution. We are one rating away from junk status with a negative outlook, and we have a state government that is barely above complete dysfunction.

Don't discount how important state finances are to corporate investment. IL is seen as an unpredictable business environment, and one that will be deteriorating going forward. In that regard, MN and MA look a lot more attractive to employers. This isn't the only reason cities like Minneapolis or Boston are growing while Chicago languishes, but it's a safe bet to say its one of the top reasons.

I doubt this

Anyway, Question back to capping the Kennedy ala like the plans to cap the Ike in Oak Park years ago, is this even feasible here at sometime in the future.

IMO out of all three capping's I would cap the Metra electric lines south of the Art Institute as far south as you could go with Government grants and private concerns.

To those that think any one of these can happen or not please tell me why or why not any of these will happen and if they do happen which will happen first?

I personally think it would be much harder to cap the Kennedy here vs Grant Park that has no exits or entrances for vehicle traffic. Capping Grant Park south one would think the 3-4 towers alone could almost do it for at least till there stretch. Think how easy it would be and not even interfere with the Metra lines. Bare bones Columns and beams holding much less mass that Millennium Park for example. All they need is a truss, columns, a cap and a nice light patch of grass.

IMO this is certainly doable but I haven't heard anything talking about this for years unless I'm not following it close enough.

Currently it is ugly and embarrassing crossing bridges to get to the east end of Grant Park or over to the Field Museum and Solder Field by walking.

To me its a total eyesore and a gut shot that is past time to fix.


Remember the Pit of what was below Millennium Park before it was decked over at a high cost? That area also was a worse embarrassment for the city.

We can do this much more cheaply and not have to worry about holding



ton structures or parking above or below it. A soccer pitch or other green fields would be all that is needed to beatify the area and make access to Grant Park easy as pie.

^ and if they put sports fields above the tracks, then they can replace the existing ones to the east with (heavier) trees. But frankly Grant Park already has too many ball fields and not enough more scenic gardens.

And for god's sake, narrow Columbus Drive to at most 2 lanes in each direction!! That's the easiest and most important improvement that could be made to Grant Park. Because frankly, Grant Park is not an impressive urban park at the moment. It's mostly concrete.

Probably.

It's a shame because high quality glass, in particular, would make or break this tower. That and the multiple angles at play, which surely add to fabrication costs.

Not to take this thread even more off topic, but what could be done to address that? Are people in these neighborhoods trying to start businesses, and not being allowed because of some kind of zoning or other regulation?

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you can do. Manufacturing would do the trick, perhaps, but you'd have to examine why that's a less compelling place to build a plant or DC than exurbia. Access to interstates and intermodal transport?

It's not like even, for instance, Amazon's HQ would fix the South Side's issues, except by replacing existing residents with new, different people hired by Amazon.


And they're going to need to stiff public pension holders. A massive haircut is the only way. Pass a constitutional amendment, give everyone 50 cents on the dollar (perhaps above a low minimum threshold like $50k in total pension value). And then do away with public employee pensions entirely, and have state employees participate in Social Security instead. You can only get one or the other, and so the existence of pensions is just voluntarily shifting the obligation from the federal government to the state, which is insanity.

I've been interested in Chicago since I first visited back in 2001. My wife has always detested the very idea of moving there....for you guess it, the cold. After this incredibly cold snap we recently had I basically told her this is pretty much how like what...2-3 months of Chicago feels like a year and she realized its not so bad when properly dressed. My point? After she finishes a year or so in her new job she is way open to Chicago now.

Crime? This is a real perception. People think the city is ravaged on all sides by crime. The media plays this up. People are often surprised when I mention Chicago is far from being the murder capital of America, per capita, which is all that matters anyways. This too is based on someone's current surroundings. I currently live in downtown Norfolk, which is relatively safe, but I am surrounded on 2 1/2 sides with nothing but public housing and the accompanied crime and deteriorated neighborhoods that come with large public housing. I never let this affect me though when im walking my dog at 2 am. Being a city dweller you learn crime is usually local, like really local.

^ Everyone who has lived in or is from Chicago has had that conversation with people.

I just tell Londoners that they're as likely to visit crime-ridden neighborhoods in Chicago as they are to visit somewhere like Croydon. There are some fairly sketchy places on the West Side that you might go to for great Mexican food, but you'd have no reason to be in most of the city's worst areas literally ever.

I used to have a job that took me to Gary, Indiana from time to time. This was in the mid-2000's. I even did some volunteer work once on the weekend, cleaning up the sidewalks. Locals were very nice to me, said hello in that particular Midwestern way. They knew I wasn't from Gary. It's a privilege to be a 6 foot tall white male in many ways. I never felt anything but incredibly safe in Chicago for the seven years I lived there. It helps to have company when you're out and about, especially if you are going out to the bars and clubs at night. Otherwise, 80-90% of the city is completely safe.

Grant Park would be the most logical in both feasibility and economically I would believe. But it would still take alot of private money via people and companies. Our city and state has way bigger problems to fix that federal grants would be used for. Even though I personally would put the grant park cap at top of the list.

Lol ya think?

Closing Columbus Drive would be so cheap. Tear up the concrete, throw some grass seeds on there, and turn on some sprinklers. Done.

+1 like a beautiful promenade with fountains and white oaks lining it (if those can grow well in chicago)

I posted this in the Chicago Eco forum a few weeks ago. In light of the current discussion, I am going to repost it here. In short, if we are ATTRACTIVE enough to garner this much tourism, surely (despite what the media tells us) there is something about Chicago that intrigues people. And if people are this intrigued by our city, we can't be that far away from getting them to stay as residents. I mean, I travel a lot for work. Everywhere I go I hear the same questions everyone is pointing out about Chicago - weather, crime, etc. But you know what else I hear... I hear stories about how when they visited, how they fell in love with Chicago. This is something we should be building upon.

Here is my post:
Speaking of inferiority complexes.... I have long been a believer that Chicago has lost a bit of its swagger... in fact, I posted that in this forum more than a few times. There is a night and day difference between the Chicago confidence/bravado that I knew as a child versus what I hear and see now. The media has really done a number on us... and I do mean to include myself in that. Why? Well, I had a revelation THIS WEEK....

Upon hearing our new numbers for tourism for our fair city - over 55 Million - a new high for Chicago - I decided to check the Nationwide numbers for tourism. To my surprise Chicago RANKED 2ND IN TOURISM throughout the United States by most reputable sources. I was floored! That is when I knew that I had been infected... by the media.

When I went to check the nationwide tourism numbers I expected to see Chicago at somewhere around 5, or 7, or possibly even 10... or even higher ....based upon the constant bashing of Chicago that we hear. And yes, there were a couple of outliers (haters) out there in the media that put us way down the list... but you could see their obvious bias/agenda. But to see that most reputable sources had us at 2 was astounding to me. At 2 over LA. At 2 over Hollywood. At 2 over DC. At 2 over Miami. At 2 over Las Vegas. At 2 over those Sunbelt cities. At 2 over any city in the South. Simply amazing when you juxtapose that with what the media tells us every day.

And the last kicker - Chicago only had 5 million less visitors than the leader in tourism, NYC - which had like 60 Million. Based upon what the media tells us everyday you would think that gap would be 10/15 million or more. Nope, not the case.

I know this is off topic but I just had to bring this up. It helped put things in perspective for me and I thought I was always one of the positive ones.While we race for Amazon and while negativity abounds, I hope this puts things in little bit better perspective for you too. Chicago is NOT what the media tells us we are. We may or may not get Amazon but Chicago has a legit shot and will be fine with or without Amazon.

The talk about population gain/loss is forgetting one simple point, Chicago was a Rust Belt town. Look at Milwaukee, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland and St Louis, you will find population increase during the great migration then huge losses after 1980, high violent crime rates and massive de-industrialization. Chicago was buoyed somewhat by immigration that these cities didn’t see, but is still more demographically similar to these cities. Minneapolis and Toronto are growing faster because of their economies and demographics. Chicago is undergoing a massive shift in workforce to focus on the jobs of tomorrow.