CHICAGO | General Discussions

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

That explains alot. Chicago has a large high end collector market and with the lower cost of living and disposable income a lot of rare collectibles are coming here. Something you don't hear to much about unless you follow the industry. One example super high end classis cars. The highest price paid for a car(Ferrari 1962 GTO) was from a collector near Chicago last year.

That reminds me of a recent article about Expo Chicago. Kind of a hilarious read actually. The world of fine art has been noticing a few new art fairs popping up in Chicago and some of the non-local dealers were having trouble understanding the emerging "working rich" market here.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/anal...ir-appearances

[the urban politician]

I would love to attend one of those high end art shows. If for no other reason than to sip champagne and to look like a highly civilized person.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I would love to attend one of those high end art shows. If for no other reason than to sip champagne and to look like a highly civilized person.

You can! Most gallery openings are free, with free drinks. I went to both of the fairs last week with my wife's VIP ticket. I go with her every year and kind of hate it. But it's only $30 to get into Expo if you like. Good people watching, for sure.

[Baronvonellis]

Hmmm, that's interesting. I know about Art Basel in Miami, I didn't know Chicago had a art fair of that scope. I would have gone to it, not that I'm going to buy art at those prices. It would be fun to check out and people watch haha.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Hmmm, that's interesting. I know about Art Basel in Miami, I didn't know Chicago had a art fair of that scope. I would have gone to it, not that I'm going to buy art at those prices. It would be fun to check out and people watch haha.

One of.my cousins used to be the President of an art museum on the west coast. He was in Chicago at least twice a year for these shows buying stuff for the museum and himself.

[the urban politician]

Marothisu, I posted your 2018 ACS numbers as a thread in City Discussions, I felt it was very interesting.

Don't worry, I credited you

[bnk]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Actually the city gained 2118 households of under $100K from 2017 to 2018. The MSA reduced 35,505 households under $100K in that same time though.


In the city and MSA both, there was a reduction of under $20K households, but a gain in $20K - $35K households. Also in the city and MSA both, there was an increase of $60K - $75K households with a loss of $75K - $100K households in both.

That doesn't sound good. If its MSA its likely from the burbs I would assume.

I thought the whole over 100K household population was gaining not losing?

How much of a reduction of under 20K in numbers is important to me for the health of the region.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bnk

That doesn't sound good. If its MSA its likely from the burbs I would assume.

I thought the whole over 100K household population was gaining not losing?

How much of a reduction of under 20K in numbers is important to me for the health of the region.

It is. Tell me where in my post(s) I indicated that it's not. I literally have the data in my first post on this that shows Chicago gained the 2nd most amount of $100K+ households in the US of any city and 2nd most amount of $200K+ growth. There is not a category between $100K and $200K for Chicago that lost.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It is. Tell me where in my post(s) I indicated that it's not. I literally have the data in my first post on this that shows Chicago gained the 2nd most amount of $100K+ households in the US of any city and 2nd most amount of $200K+ growth. There is not a category between $100K and $200K for Chicago that lost.

Ok no problem

I just did not want to learch back a few posts

Sorry If I offended you I just moved in the last two weeks so its hard to keep up the data on a phone. I only got cable and internet in the last 2 days so give me a bit of a break here.


Chilax

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bnk

Ok no problem

I just did not want to learch back a few posts

Sorry If I offended you I just moved in the last two weeks so its hard to keep up the data on a phone. I only got cable and internet in the last 2 days so give me a bit of a break here.


Chilax

LOL I mean I just had a wedding this weekend and planned most of the thing with my wife...so I understand.

[the urban politician]

^ Your numbers for San Jose and SF confuse me. How can the >100k number be less than the >200k number?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

LOL I mean I just had a wedding this weekend and planned most of the thing with my wife...so I understand.

Did you get married?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Your numbers for San Jose and SF confuse me. How can the >100k number be less than the >200k number?

It makes sense when you break it down:

San Jose
$100K - $125K: -1406 households
$125K - $150K: +2010 households
$150K - $200K: -1816 households
$200K+: +11,239 households

$100K - $200K: -1212 households

San Francisco
$100K - $125K: -4206 households
$125K - $150K: -4687 households
$150K - $200K: +298 households
$200K+: +11,210 households

$100K - $200K: -8595 households

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Did you get married?

By law been married for a few months, but we just had the big expensive wedding part the other day.

[the urban politician]

^ Ok, I see, I think it’s confusing when you label the category as >$100k, that makes people assume that you mean everything over $100k. Probably would be better to label it as $100k-$200k instead

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

By law been married for a few months, but we just had the big expensive wedding part the other day.

Lol you aren't married until you've spent 5 figures or more to prove it...

Next thing you know she will want kids and that's a six figure outlay...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Lol you aren't married until you've spent 5 figures or more to prove it...

Next thing you know she will want kids and that's a six figure outlay...

LOL seems to be very true. Didn't feel official even until we spent tens of thousands of dollars and had many people there with us.

She's 2.5 years younger than me though we are both in our 30s. I figure we will travel the world for a good 3 years before she wants kids Then probably move back to Chicago before having kids.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Ok, I see, I think it’s confusing when you label the category as >$100k, that makes people assume that you mean everything over $100k. Probably would be better to label it as $100k-$200k instead

Yeah I was also thinking it looks weird until looking again at the data.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Actually the city gained 2118 households of under $100K from 2017 to 2018. The MSA reduced 35,505 households under $100K in that same time though.

In the city and MSA both, there was a reduction of under $20K households, but a gain in $20K - $35K households. Also in the city and MSA both, there was an increase of $60K - $75K households with a loss of $75K - $100K households in both.

This is fascinating and, logically and anecdotally, it totally makes sense to me. $75-$100K is that income range where you can live comfortably, but around Chicago it's still going to be tough to put away much savings besides your 401K. You feel rich based on your salary but are shocked when your expenses quickly eat up your monthly income. If you're a family, health care costs keep going up and now your SALT taxes are going up plus they can't be deducted over 10K. You're going to be much more open to move to a low-tax state to keep living in the same size house (or bigger) + 2 cars at a lower cost. This income range also reflects people I've known who end up leaving the area due to the "high costs of Chicago."

This also fits into the narrative of the squeezed middle class.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I was looking at SFH with the wife and figured we would at least consider Oak Park, but wtf the taxes are horrendous outside of the city. I don't understand why a $1.25 million house in old Irving Park pays half the taxes as a 750k house in Oak Park. It's a bummer too because the Robert Parker house is for sale for only like $750k which we might be able to swing if we didn't have to tack $2500/mo in taxes on top of it. That's just silly, the entire payment would be $2500, the taxes are equal to a second mortgage payment...

I can see why people in that 75-100k salary range are scramming when a $350k house comes with a $10k+ annual tax bill...

Does anyone know why taxes are so low in the city proper? Is it just the smaller lots sizes or what?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I was looking at SFH with the wife and figured we would at least consider Oak Park, but wtf the taxes are horrendous outside of the city. I don't understand why a $1.25 million house in old Irving Park pays half the taxes as a 750k house in Oak Park. It's a bummer too because the Robert Parker house is for sale for only like $750k which we might be able to swing if we didn't have to tack $2500/mo in taxes on top of it. That's just silly, the entire payment would be $2500, the taxes are equal to a second mortgage payment...

I can see why people in that 75-100k salary range are scramming when a $350k house comes with a $10k+ annual tax bill...

Does anyone know why taxes are so low in the city proper? Is it just the smaller lots sizes or what?

We have that massive downtown with multiple millions of square feet of commercial real estate that helps keep residential taxes in check. You also looked at Oak Park, which may have some of the highest real estate taxes in the entire metro area. Nice town, but not worth it to me.