CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Awesome, more $$ for its workers to buy homes in Schaumburg and work in their pajamas!

We might see a few extra Lotus Evora GT’s driving on Golf Rd in Hoffman Estates

I'm sure these people exist. But literally the only people I meet who live in the suburbs are pleated khaki golfer-types, old people who think Olive Garden is fancy or people with kids who would rather be in the city.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I'm sure these people exist. But literally the only people I meet who live in the suburbs are pleated khaki golfer-types, old people who think Olive Garden is fancy or people with kids who would rather be in the city.

don't forget about the people who think they'll get shot the second the step foot in Millenium Park (of course, you must distinguish between the Schaumburgs and the Oak Parks / Park Ridges, etc.)

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Awesome, more $$ for its workers to buy homes in Schaumburg and work in their pajamas!

We might see a few extra Lotus Evora GT’s driving on Golf Rd in Hoffman Estates

Office Users On Why They Are Comfortable Signing Leases Again

The quick turnaround in the city’s public health metrics means it is decision time for Chicago office users. The emptying out of the downtown over the past year, and the uncertainty over when the crisis would end, led many companies to put off signing new leases. But with the pace of vaccinations ramping up starting in February, plans to move or extend leases can now be dusted off.
....
There’s little relevant data available, as for much of Q1 the downtown was still quiet as office workers typed away and held Zoom calls on home computers. But more firms are dipping their toes in the water, taking downtown tours, and a few have already signed new leases.

“I’m not hearing too many people saying, ‘Zoom is great, so we don’t need any space,’” he added. “And I don’t think companies are coming into this thinking that they will definitely shrink so much as finding different ways to operate.”

Bisnow spoke to several firms that inked deals in the past couple of months for new office space in downtown Chicago. Each is keeping an open mind about finding the right mix between in-office and work-from-home strategies. Another thing they have in common is that concerns about the coronavirus were just one factor among many in their leasing decisions. The other factors were the same most office users considered in the pre-pandemic era, especially how certain neighborhoods like Fulton Market or building amenities were more likely to help attract talent.

The pandemic delayed but did not derail long-held plans by Calamos Investments to establish another office. The Naperville, Illinois-based asset manager was examining options before the coronavirus hit, and like many firms before the crisis, it eventually decided to tap into the downtown talent pool and give employees the option of working in the city’s central business district.

Calamos Senior Vice President Kenneth Witkowski, who directs the firm’s real estate portfolio, said he believes that after the coronavirus recedes, younger recruits will still want to live in neighborhoods close to downtown. That focused the company’s attention on possible sites in Fulton Market, River North and the Loop.

Law firm Ice Miller also found affordable deals as it searched for new downtown space, according to Managing Partner John Burke. The firm recently doubled in size to 44 attorneys and began its search for a bigger office just before the pandemic-related shutdown. The coronavirus delayed the search, but when a space opened up just above its 35th-floor office at 200 West Madison St., the firm decided to stay and sign a long-term lease extension and expansion with owner BentallGreenOak. The deal will increase its current 23K SF to 36K SF. “I would definitely say we got a fair deal for the space,” Burke said.

But cost wasn’t the only factor that led Ice Miller to pull the trigger on securing new space. Although the firm had a partial work-from-home strategy even before the pandemic, with some people choosing to work from home several days a week, Burke said it needs an office to promote collegiality. Its new space on the 36th floor has a cafeteria, and unlike many other firms, the people at Ice Miller traditionally gather at lunch to share a meal.

The need to promote collegiality and maintain a corporate culture is also why Sammons Financial Group felt comfortable committing to a new space, according to Steve Palmitier, president and chief operating officer of its life division. It recently signed a new lease for 10K SF at The Old Post Office, directly across the street from its present location at 525 West Van Buren St., and anticipates taking occupancy in early 2022. “We’re a company with a very strong culture, and we felt it was important for a majority of our employees to be back at work,” he said.

Palmitier said it was important for him and other leaders to sit around a conference table, brainstorming ideas with staff members, especially with those who themselves could be future leaders. That’s the only way to gauge their personality and see how they interact with co-workers, he said. “You don’t see that on a Zoom call, it doesn’t come out in the same way,” he said.

The switch to Zoom hearings by the courts could result in other permanent changes to office design for law firms. Burke said Ice Miller will likely set aside special offices where attorneys can attend court via Zoom, as judges have found the technology an efficient way to handle court appearances and are unlikely to go back to the old ways even after the pandemic subsides.

“I don’t think we’ll ever have to see 12 lawyers have to cram themselves into an elevator at the Daley Center again,” he said.

https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/...-market-108887

[the urban politician]

^ None of this changes the fact that Chicago's (and other big urban cities') overwhelming swagger over their suburban hinterlands that reached a crescendo in early 2020 will probably not come back.

Prior to the pandemic, particularly after the 2008 housing collapse, Chicago was booming at the expense of the suburbs.

But now, due to WFH snowflakery, the suburbs have been given a major shot in the arm even as Chicago recovers from the pandemic. It won't be a return to previous times where suburban homes were languishing for years and selling at a prices below what they went for 20 years ago, because all of the action was in the city and you had to be there if you wanted to be part of the booming economy.

It's a new norm in which both the city and suburbs are in a bit of a new equilibrium.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It's a new norm in which both the city and suburbs are in a bit of a new equilibrium.

Which is a great thing, and more of how it should be. No need to put down one to prop up the other really. Cities are more than starting recover now and suburbs got a nice shot in the arm the last 10 to 12 months.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ None of this changes the fact that Chicago's (and other big urban cities') overwhelming swagger over their suburban hinterlands that reached a crescendo in early 2020 will probably not come back.

Prior to the pandemic, particularly after the 2008 housing collapse, Chicago was booming at the expense of the suburbs.

But now, due to WFH snowflakery, the suburbs have been given a major shot in the arm even as Chicago recovers from the pandemic. It won't be a return to previous times where suburban homes were languishing for years and selling at a prices below what they went for 20 years ago, because all of the action was in the city and you had to be there if you wanted to be part of the booming economy.

It's a new norm in which both the city and suburbs are in a bit of a new equilibrium.

A shot in the arm, but has marothisu as highlighted, the suburbs aren't getting a boost at an expense of the city. Plenty of movement in Chicago real estate to quell fears that the city will empty out, in fact quite the contrary. Just because someone works from home a few days a week does not mean they suddenly crave the strip malls and ennui of the suburbs; anyone decamping for the suburbs was going to leave anyway. Good luck getting a new UofM grad to live in Libertyville just because their downtown commute went from 5 days a week to 3 days a week...

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

...literally the only people I meet who live in the suburbs are pleated khaki golfer-types, old people who think Olive Garden is fancy or people with kids who would rather be in the city.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ None of this changes the fact that Chicago's (and other big urban cities') overwhelming swagger over their suburban hinterlands that reached a crescendo in early 2020 will probably not come back.

Prior to the pandemic, particularly after the 2008 housing collapse, Chicago was booming at the expense of the suburbs.

But now, due to WFH snowflakery, the suburbs have been given a major shot in the arm even as Chicago recovers from the pandemic. It won't be a return to previous times where suburban homes were languishing for years and selling at a prices below what they went for 20 years ago, because all of the action was in the city and you had to be there if you wanted to be part of the booming economy.

It's a new norm in which both the city and suburbs are in a bit of a new equilibrium.

The biggest shot in the arm suburbs have received recently is that the affordability gradient has almost completely reversed. As that was happening it was a time of disequilibrium.

There are what most would call mansions on the north shore that are selling for less what they sold for in 2000 and selling for far less than a similarly sized home would cost in Humboldt Park, Pilsen or Rogers Park now, say nothing of more desirable neighborhoods on the near North or West sides.

When I moved to Chicago in the late 90's, I had to commute to the suburbs for work. And everyone's boss lived in the suburbs. Obviously there are account executives at Grainger; folks working at State Farm call centers; executives at some company that prints text on Happy Meals... that would never consider moving into the city due to their personal tastes or because they can't afford it. I agree that it feels like an equilibrium has been reached--those folks are not going to move to Logan Square or McKinley Park any time soon. A house with an expansive front lawn or a condo by the highway is going to be the best bang-for-the-buck in most of the metro area if you you truly value lawn ornaments or don't value the amenities the city provides.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Handro

A shot in the arm, but has marothisu as highlighted, the suburbs aren't getting a boost at an expense of the city. Plenty of movement in Chicago real estate to quell fears that the city will empty out, in fact quite the contrary. Just because someone works from home a few days a week does not mean they suddenly crave the strip malls and ennui of the suburbs; anyone decamping for the suburbs was going to leave anyway. Good luck getting a new UofM grad to live in Libertyville just because their downtown commute went from 5 days a week to 3 days a week...

Totally anecodtal but i have multiple employees and coworkers in Chicago and NYC who moved out of the respective cities since the pandemic. Some went to live with their parents, some went to suburbs on their own, and others would work month by month in a new location around the country. A lot of it was to save money and many people thinking "Whats the point of being here if everything is closed?"

Now that we are returning to office in a hybrid setting, 2 to 3 days a week, for the unforeseeable future, and things in both cities have opened back up up continue to open up.. almost everyone has either moved back to the city or in the process of doing it. Only 1 of my friends is staying in the suburbs but they would have gone there anyway regardless of the pandemic happening or not.

The reason why people left the city in my own world had less to do with working and more to do with the amenities around them getting closed down. Multiple people asked why they are paying city prices if they can't go to restaurants, bars, shows, etc. With things coming back online, a 3 day a week work in the office schedule isnt going to convince anyone who wants to be in a city to not be in the city (given what they want for a commute). Living in a city is more about the amenities around you to many, many people. The only thing I feel that it might do is lessen the micro apartment fad as people have realized they want a little more space nowadays. This doesn't mean going from a 500 sq ft studio to a 2000 sq ft SFH in the suburbs. It might just mean going from 500 sq ft to 800-1000 sq ft.

It's great both suburbs and city are coming on strong and I fully predict that we'll see many cities in the coming future only expand. This might actually be good for some places like Chicago to become even more vibrant. I think the pandemic has taught people that maybe they need to get outside even more, because staying at home so much can get a bit crazy.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Which is a great thing, and more of how it should be. No need to put down one to prop up the other really.

yeah, my sister and her family have been "trapped" in their big suburban house up in Lake Villa for years now, because the house still hadn't climbed back above what they purchased it for way back in 2002 after the 2008 crash.

they've wanted to downsize and get closer to the city for years, but refused to eat the loss on a sale.

i saw her at a family get together two weeks ago and we talked about the issue and she said that their house has finally gone up about ~25% in value so far this year with the suburban SFH feeding frenzy currently going on, and is now above what they paid for it nearly two decades ago. so they're contemplating throwing their house back on the market while the getting is good.

the fact that they're suburban home is now finally worth more than what they paid for it 20 years ago is a good thing.

Originally Posted by marothisu

This doesn't mean going from a 500 sq ft studio to a 2000 sq ft SFH in the suburbs. It might just mean going from 500 sq ft to 800-1000 sq ft.

yeah, our new upstairs neighbors (DINKs) moved from a small 1-bed in the heart of lincoln park, up here to lincoln square to a 1,300 SF 3-bed.

the reason: the past year of living and working together in a small 1-bedroom wasn't worth it to them to be in lincoln park anymore, but that didn't mean they wanted the whole big suburban house with a yard thing either.

they just wanted more bedrooms for WFH offices.

the pandemic has absolutely caused a great many people to re-evaluate their home living space needs/desires, but there are A LOT more choices than either a small one bedroom highrise condo downtown or a 3,500 SF mcmansion on the cul-de-sac out in exurbia.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the pandemic has absolutely caused a great many people to re-evaluate their home living space needs/desires, but there are A LOT more choices than either a small one bedroom highrise condo downtown or a 3,500 SF mcmansion on the cul-de-sac out in exurbia.

Exactly. Even here in NYC, my building and other buildings on my street owned by the same landlord have larger 1 bedrooms than what you'll get in Manhattan. The demand never stopped and rent barely even dropped here during the pandemic as a result. The only ones for my landlord that dropped I saw, noticeably, were studio apartments.

It's important to look at data like that from NEMA in Chicago who said they had an almost 40% uptick in current tenants looking to up the amount of space they currently have. They weren't running for the suburbs - they were just saying hey maybe my studio can become a 1 bedroom instead.

In regards to the data I have been collecting on sale price >= list price, data up until Monday night that I have..

Condos/Townhomes

2 bedroom: 551
3 bedroom: 313
1 bedroom: 175
4 bedroom: 42
Studio: 5
5 bedroom: 3

SFH
4 bedroom: 298
3 bedroom: 295
5 bedroom: 121
2 bedroom: 78
6 bedroom: 23
7 bedroom: 8

There's now a few hundred more of this category for condos than SFH now. This wasn't the case back in the fall/first few months of the year. Since April 1st, there's been 456 SFH sales of this type versus 752 condos/townhomes. Still a number of SFH selling though of course, which makes sense. Overall sale numbers of course is some other story, which I don't have 100% of the data on right now. The uptick for the amount of condos in dense areas though getting sold for at or above their list price is very noticeable though. Lake View for example in January and February only had 9 of them (condos). On 4/30 alone, there were 10 of them for Lake View. Literally on 1 day there, more sold for at or above their list price than the entire first 2 months of the year combined.

January-March for Condos (90 days)
West Town: 45
Near West Side: 41
Lake View: 37
Lincoln Park: 23
Near North Side: 23
Near South Side: 21
Uptown: 18
Edgewater: 14
Rogers Park: 11
The Loop: 8
Lincoln Square: 7
North Center: 7
Albany Park: 3


April - May 17th for Condos (47 days)
West Town: 104 (+131%)
Lake View: 89 (+140.5%)
Uptown: 56 (+211%)
Lincoln Park: 50 (+117.4%)
Near North Side: 48 (+108.7%)
Near West Side: 42 (+2.4%)
Rogers Park: 36 (+227.3%)
North Center: 35 (+400%)
Near South Side: 31 (+47.6%)
Edgewater: 23 (+64.3%)
The Loop: 19 (+137.5%)
Lincoln Square: 17 (+142.9%)
Albany Park: 12 (+300%)

Of the 13 areas here, 10 have seen at least 100% increases in the last 47 days (as of Monday) versus the first 90 days of this year. Something tells me there's something to this, that perhaps people are moving back to the city and upgrading space. Also with that comes the above links talking about how various new luxury apartment buildings have leased up now pretty quickly.

[sentinel]

^Data is beautiful.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Exactly. Even here in NYC, my building and other buildings on my street owned by the same landlord have larger 1 bedrooms than what you'll get in Manhattan. The demand never stopped and rent barely even dropped here during the pandemic as a result. The only ones for my landlord that dropped I saw, noticeably, were studio apartments.

^ That's not true based on the data and articles I remember reading at the time. The pandemic had consequences, real ones, for apartment rents in major cities, including New York and Chicago.

Just because occupancy stayed nearly the same doesn't tell the whole story, and that is very important.

Landlords had to slash rents and offer concessions (2 months free rent) to keep their buildings full.

Not only were LOTS of people doing that in Chicago in 2020, but I was as well, which was unprecedented. 2 months free rent became an automatic deal I offered to fill some of my units.

All of those deals are literally GONE now. Rents aren't still at pre-pandemic levels yet, but they are on the rise.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's not true based on the data and articles I remember reading at the time. The pandemic had consequences, real ones, for apartment rents in major cities, including New York and Chicago.

Just because occupancy stayed nearly the same doesn't tell the whole story, and that is very important.

Landlords had to slash rents and offer concessions (2 months free rent) to keep their buildings full.

Not only were LOTS of people doing that in Chicago in 2020, but I was as well, which was unprecedented. 2 months free rent became an automatic deal I offered to fill some of my units.

All of those deals are literally GONE now. Rents aren't still at pre-pandemic levels yet, but they are on the rise.

Except I was talking about my one current area, which is a collection of a handful of buildings and about 5000 to 10,000 people. A neighborhood within a neighborhood. I was not talking about the entirety of NYC. The only thing my landlord did, which owns a handful of large buildings around me, was offer 1 more month of rent free. The gross rent was the same. Some areas of nyc during the height of the pandemic had steady or even increasing rents while others, like the majority of Manhattan had declining rents. Some of the areas that rose were actually lower income areas of Queens.

And I know this because we were weighing whether we should move to another building/area when our lease was up at the end of 2020. I had talked with my leasing office who controls thousands of units in Manhattan and Queens. They had given me this information that the buildings in our area hadnt really decreased the gross rent, but the ones they control in areas like Manhattan did.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's not true based on the data and articles I remember reading at the time. The pandemic had consequences, real ones, for apartment rents in major cities, including New York and Chicago.

No one here is denying that the pandemic had consequences across cities. What many folks here are saying is that urban areas will bounce back from this.

Marothisu has been consistently sharing data showing that Chicago's home sales have skyrocketed, and demand is as hot as the 2000s. The downtown rental market is recovering much faster than expected. Articles are being written of why businesses are staying in the city. The past month, we've seen several job relocations to West Loop from rural and suburban areas. Chicago is already surpassing its previous VC records.Industrial vacancy in the city is at an all time low, even as new supply is coming in. Many forumers have shared anecdotes from their workplace and from their friends. Heck, I was at a discussion last month with folks from Sterling Bay, and they genuinely expect an office boom once the pandemic is over.

The belief that cities will never experience another renaissance is starting to become an old narrative. There are certainly consequences that the pandemic has left on cities across the country, but cities are learning from these effects for the better. We are seeing real-time that people and businesses want to remain in cities, even with all their problems, because of how much benefit their is from both a financial standpoint to a personal one. Heck, all of last year we saw people were literally willing to risk getting sick from Covid-19 just so they could dine at a restaurant. Most people enjoy being outside and not cramped in their homes.

But you keep countering all this evidence with little current data and an attitude of "that's just like, your opinion, man"

[marothisu]

^ Like this?

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/resi...s-hit-new-high

The number of homes sold locally also grew explosively in March. In Chicago, 2,877 homes sold last month, an increase of 35.5 percent from March 2020.

Sales that closed in March 2020 would mostly have been contracts made in the months and weeks prior to the pandemic. Some contracts didn’t close or were delayed at the start of the shutdowns, but as real estate was deemed an essential business in shutdown orders, much of the business went ahead.

In Chicago, sales in March 2020 were up 3 percent from the year before. It was in April that sales began to plummet.

..

In the nine-county metro area, 10,846 homes sold in March. That’s an increase of 24.6 percent from March 2020. It’s not the biggest of the past nine months.

So basically, even if you exclude the city from the last stat, it was higher than the suburbs for March. According to the data I've seen, April in Chicago exploded even more than March. Both were very high, and way higher than the national average..

Nationwide, home sales were up 12.3 percent last month.

But the not great news (although great for some..):

“The housing sector recorded strong month-to-month and year-over-year changes in March in both sales and prices,” said Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, emeritus director of the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory at the University of Illinois. “The main concern in the coming months will be the low inventory levels, currently 1.3 months at current sales rates in Chicago.”

That is, there are enough homes on the market to fuel just 1.3 months of sales. Typically, four to six months of inventory is considered a healthy market.

Now for April, which apparently had the most residential sales seen in the city of any month since 2005:
https://www.chicagonow.com/getting-r...ales-in-april/

No matter how you look at it April was sizzling hot. There’s no point in comparing it to April 2020 because sales sucked with the pandemic. But it was 26.5% above April 2019 levels just to give you a decent benchmark. And almost all of that increase came from the sales of condos since single family homes are in such short supply. Condo sales were up 39.4% from April 2019.

..

If you want to know where sales are heading you have to watch contract activity and, again, April set a record with 16.1% more contracts written than in 2019 (again, no point in looking at sucky 2020). Also, it was the 11th consecutive month with a year over year increase in activity. So May should have decent closings.

..

The percentage of sales that are distressed just keeps hitting impossibly low levels. Look at the graph below. In 2012 it was unthinkable that it could drop as low as 1.5% but it just did. Compare that to 4.1% last year. Of course, the fact that there is a moratorium in place on foreclosures is probably helping to drive the percentage to zero but here we are.

Now whether this is healthy for the economy is a completely different story. Another consequence of the pandemic in many areas - rising housing prices. I'm curious to see whether this will actually continue for the next few months or start to decrease.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

. The only thing my landlord did, which owns a handful of large buildings around me, was offer 1 more month of rent free. The gross rent was the same.

I obviously don’t want to belabor this discussion, but it’s important to understand that “just” one month of free rent to retain tenants may sound small, but it’s a pretty large reduction in rent.

Imagine if your employer told you that they need to withhold one month of your pay in order to keep you at your job. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t view that as just a slight inconvenience.

Point is, no matter what anybody says, the fact is that rents took a hit in 2020 but now they are on their way back. And that’s good, because apartment developers will begin to grow confident and we may see another wave of construction cranes if this keeps up

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

No one here is denying that the pandemic had consequences across cities. What many folks here are saying is that urban areas will bounce back from this.

Marothisu has been consistently sharing data showing that Chicago's home sales have skyrocketed, and demand is as hot as the 2000s. The downtown rental market is recovering much faster than expected. Articles are being written of why businesses are staying in the city. The past month, we've seen several job relocations to West Loop from rural and suburban areas. Chicago is already surpassing its previous VC records.Industrial vacancy in the city is at an all time low, even as new supply is coming in. Many forumers have shared anecdotes from their workplace and from their friends. Heck, I was at a discussion last month with folks from Sterling Bay, and they genuinely expect an office boom once the pandemic is over.

The belief that cities will never experience another renaissance is starting to become an old narrative. There are certainly consequences that the pandemic has left on cities across the country, but cities are learning from these effects for the better. We are seeing real-time that people and businesses want to remain in cities, even with all their problems, because of how much benefit their is from both a financial standpoint to a personal one. Heck, all of last year we saw people were literally willing to risk getting sick from Covid-19 just so they could dine at a restaurant. Most people enjoy being outside and not cramped in their homes.

But you keep countering all this evidence with little current data and an attitude of "that's just like, your opinion, man"

I have no idea whom you are arguing with.

Whenever I point out that the suburban housing market is doing well, literally the same 3 people go into panic mode and then we predictably get 5 pages of data showing how well Chicago’s housing market is doing.

For what reason? God knows... But it sure has nothing to do with me

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I obviously don’t want to belabor this discussion, but it’s important to understand that “just” one month of free rent to retain tenants may sound small, but it’s a pretty large reduction in rent.

Imagine if your employer told you that they need to withhold one month of your pay in order to keep you at your job. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t view that as just a slight inconvenience.

Point is, no matter what anybody says, the fact is that rents took a hit in 2020 but now they are on their way back. And that’s good, because apartment developers will begin to grow confident and we may see another wave of construction cranes if this keeps up

I don't disagree. The thing is though this is different than what most landlords were doing even in Manhattan. Even my same landlord. So not only did they offer a few months free, they knocked down the gross rent all over Manhattan. A lot of people around here were signing 24 month rents too in our little area. In the short term, the landlord isn't making as much obviously. Long term they may make it all back.

In nyc this is kind of the game though between landlords, agents, and tenants anyway from before the pandemic. They would keep smaller buildings lesser in rent because an agent would charge the tenant a percentage of the yearly rent upfront in hopes of keeping them there long term. Kind of locking them in for multiple years by guilt tripping them by requiring a large fee. My first Manhattan apartment was $2800/mo, which is cheaper than a fancy tower. However, I had to pay $11,000 in cash up front to even secure the place and live there. A whole lot of BS. Thr apartments that say "no fee" don't do this but are more expensive. Agents would get you on this. They may have made the agent fee illegal right before the pandemic though.

[the urban politician]

This looks like a very interesting development planned for the far southeast side:

https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/05/ren...east-side.html

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I have no idea whom you are arguing with.

Whenever I point out that the suburban housing market is doing well, literally the same 3 people go into panic mode and then we predictably get 5 pages of data showing how well Chicago’s housing market is doing.

For what reason? God knows... But it sure has nothing to do with me

The responses to your messages are actually about assuming that all these people are going to be automatically moving to the suburbs as if it's still July 2020. It has nothing to do with whether the suburbs are doing well or not (they obviously are). It's a disregard that the city right now is having people moving to it again and doing very well with crazy increases in sales lately. Literally nobody is arguing that the suburbs aren't doing well. We are arguing that the city all of a sudden is hot again, and it's not some guarantee anymore that as many people are looking at the suburbs even like they were 4 months ago, like you are implying