CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

Wow, so architecturally elitist that you wouldn't live in arguably the social epicenter of the second largest metro in the US...

I live there and can walk a couple blocks south to the riverwalk for stunning views or north to the cathedral district. Are all of the newer buildings lookers, NO; however, they were built economically and costs prohibited more 'attractive' features. Those newer ones that have such elements/ sophisticated designs tend to be much more $$$ (e.g. OBP, Vista, Aqua, etc.).

For a city with a top 10 global GDP, our real estate is still very cheap even in the hottest area (Grand Red stop is the high $/sqft). Honestly curious what small speck of the states (or world) would satisfy you if River North, walking distance from incredible examples, is not even livable.

I wouldn't live in River North either but mostly because it's so square. I agree that it's pretty ugly.

[Tom In Chicago]

Yes. . . River North is ugly. . . and is getting uglier by the minute. . . this is not a newsflash, but sheesh it's a big ole' mess!

. . .

[10023]

Originally Posted by Ricochet48

Wow, so architecturally elitist that you wouldn't live in arguably the social epicenter of the second largest metro in the US...

I live there and can walk a couple blocks south to the riverwalk for stunning views or north to the cathedral district. Are all of the newer buildings lookers, NO; however, they were built economically and costs prohibited more 'attractive' features. Those newer ones that have such elements/ sophisticated designs tend to be much more $$$ (e.g. OBP, Vista, Aqua, etc.).

For a city with a top 10 global GDP, our real estate is still very cheap even in the hottest area (Grand Red stop is the high $/sqft). Honestly curious what small speck of the states (or world) would satisfy you if River North, walking distance from incredible examples, is not even livable.

Hello, guy with 9 posts.

First of all, River North is far from the “social epicenter” of Chicago. There isn’t much I can think of north of Illinois, beyond the part that’s basically the Greater Loop (with Bavette’s, Siena Tavern, etc). It’s certainly not trendy. And it’s definitely an ugly neighborhood.

I would rather trade quantity for quality. If Chicago had a bit less construction, maybe even half as much, but it was all of very high quality, the city would be better off in the long run. It is ridiculously cheap (relatively speaking) and there’s an enormous supply of affordable housing in Chicago anyway, and it’s basically limitless if you count potential infill in depressed neighborhoods.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 10023

Hello, guy with 9 posts.

First of all, River North is far from the “social epicenter” of Chicago. There isn’t much I can think of north of Illinois, beyond the part that’s basically the Greater Loop (with Bavette’s, Siena Tavern, etc). It’s certainly not trendy. And it’s definitely an ugly neighborhood.

It's the biggest concentration of bars and restaurants in the city easily. There's something frenetic and cool about having every inch of street frontage packed with bars, not just on one street but on every street and side street, sometimes with second floors and basements containing even more establishments. It's really a nightlife district that truly exists in three dimensions when most of Chicago's trendy spots are in one dimension along a corridor or less than one (e.g. one intersection with trendy stuff ala California/Augusta).

Most of the bars and restaurants themselves in River North, I could take or leave... but some are very, very good or even groundbreaking. Ramen-san, Il Porcellino, yes Siena Tavern and Bavette's, obviously Frontera/Topolobampo, etc. Foodies should not scoff at River North despite the many douchey bars.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's the biggest concentration of bars and restaurants in the city easily. There's something frenetic and cool about having every inch of street frontage packed with bars, not just on one street but on every street and side street, sometimes with second floors and basements containing even more establishments. It's really a nightlife district that truly exists in three dimensions when most of Chicago's trendy spots are in one dimension along a corridor or less than one (e.g. one intersection with trendy stuff ala California/Augusta).

Most of the bars and restaurants themselves in River North, I could take or leave... but some are very, very good or even groundbreaking. Ramen-san, Il Porcellino, yes Siena Tavern and Bavette's, obviously Frontera/Topolobampo, etc. Foodies should not scoff at River North despite the many douchey bars.

Strong agree. I lived in River North for 15 months and it completely changed my mind about the neighborhood. Yes, it has its warts. There are people from and outside the city constantly swarming the area to do all sorts of stuff that makes it smelly, inauthentic, and gross. But there is far more to River North than just tourist traps and chain restaurants. Don't knock it until you try it is all I am saying.

Same applies to Streeterville. Yes, some of it feels bland. But that neighborhood is starting to get some awesome stuff going on and I can imagine it will be a great place to live in about 10 years if it isn't already right now.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Hello, guy with 9 posts.

First of all, River North is far from the “social epicenter” of Chicago. There isn’t much I can think of north of Illinois, beyond the part that’s basically the Greater Loop (with Bavette’s, Siena Tavern, etc). It’s certainly not trendy. And it’s definitely an ugly neighborhood.

I would rather trade quantity for quality. If Chicago had a bit less construction, maybe even half as much, but it was all of very high quality, the city would be better off in the long run. It is ridiculously cheap (relatively speaking) and there’s an enormous supply of affordable housing in Chicago anyway, and it’s basically limitless if you count potential infill in depressed neighborhoods.

The hood has changed in the last 5 years - dramatically . Literally velvet ropes with dudes checking lists to see who can get in to clubs some of which have zero street presence, some of which loudly burst across the sidewalk.

Visit around 2am some weekend night and see.

[petey2428]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's the biggest concentration of bars and restaurants in the city easily. There's something frenetic and cool about having every inch of street frontage packed with bars, not just on one street but on every street and side street, sometimes with second floors and basements containing even more establishments. It's really a nightlife district that truly exists in three dimensions when most of Chicago's trendy spots are in one dimension along a corridor or less than one (e.g. one intersection with trendy stuff ala California/Augusta).

Most of the bars and restaurants themselves in River North, I could take or leave... but some are very, very good or even groundbreaking. Ramen-san, Il Porcellino, yes Siena Tavern and Bavette's, obviously Frontera/Topolobampo, etc. Foodies should not scoff at River North despite the many douchey bars.

I see where you're going.... until you quoted ramen-san as being "very, very good or even groundbreaking." Ramen-san is good enough, but it's nowehre near being the top ramen-places in Chicago. Hell, most ramen places in the suburbs are better than ramen-san. Ramen-san is very river north though. Take something ethnic and whitewash it to fit the type of sheltered crowd who's intimidated by ethnic food.

[KWillChicago]

Originally Posted by harryc

The hood has changed in the last 5 years - dramatically . Literally velvet ropes with dudes checking lists to see who can get in to clubs some of which have zero street presence, some of which loudly burst across the sidewalk.

Visit around 2am some weekend night and see.

Haha. Sienna room wouldnt let me and a girl in because I wasn't wearing a button up shirt. But instead a sweater that was most likely more expensive than the rest of the "shirts" in line. And yet, I was able to walk into Sixteen and Everest with a Metallica and STP shirt on because I was with a Ken Griffin group of people. Money walks the talk, apparently sweaters do not.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by petey2428

I see where you're going.... until you quoted ramen-san as being "very, very good or even groundbreaking." Ramen-san is good enough, but it's nowehre near being the top ramen-places in Chicago. Hell, most ramen places in the suburbs are better than ramen-san. Ramen-san is very river north though. Take something ethnic and whitewash it to fit the type of sheltered crowd who's intimidated by ethnic food.

This.

I'd be curious about what, exactly, might be 'groundbreaking' about Ramen-San. It's decent enough, but none of the food I've had there was particularly memorable, let alone differentiated, in comparison to other Japanese food I've had.

[ardecila]

^ Ha, I said very very good or groundbreaking. I don't claim to be an expert on ramen, though where I could tell what is innovative vs traditional. IIRC my food at Ramen-san was nearly as good as what I had at High Five, and way better than what I had at Furious Spoon. I'd put Ramen-san and Strings on a similar level. I've had some mediocre ramen as well at random sushi or poke places, so I think I've had the gamut and I really like Ramen-san.

It's not like Chicago has some authentically Japanese neighborhood (well, in city limits anyway) where you can go and get ramen the way your baba used to make it. All ramen places are gonna serve food that's filtered through the lens of American expectations.

[left of center]

Haven't tried Ramen-san, but I can attest that High Five Ramen is indeed phenomenal.

If only Chicago had an ethnic Japanese enclave or neighborhood... I think I'd live there

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by left of center

Haven't tried Ramen-san, but I can attest that High Five Ramen is indeed phenomenal.

If only Chicago had an ethnic Japanese enclave or neighborhood... I think I'd live there

According to Curious City on WBEZ, Chicago's Japan town was at Clark and Belmont-Addison and had over 150 Japanese owned businesses.. Chicago took in 20,000 relocated Japanese from the west coast internment camps. The Lakeview Japanese neighborhood was vibrant through the 60's and 70's. The population has been assimilated across our region.

[left of center]

Wow, interesting info. I had absolutely no idea that something like that ever existed in city limits. Would have been nice if the community remained centralized in order to have kept the neighborhood viable.

[SolarWind]

July 2, 2018



Trees are fenced off with bracing in place.

[marothisu]

I realized that a few months ago the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released their personal income data for 2016 by MSA (also state, metropolitan division, etc). They have Real Personal Income and Real Personal Income Per Capita. Personal Income measures more than just the job wages. It measures pretty much all income - whether from say investing in a stock and cashing out or rental income or just straight up wages from a job (salary or hourly). It also accounts for RPPs or Regional Price Parities. These measure costs of all items in that area as a percentage of the national average. In essence, it kind of normalizes everything to cost of living in a sense.

Chicago MSA between 2010 and 2016 made some pretty big progress. In 2010, the Real Personal Income Per Capita was ranked 35th highest but in 2016 it was 21st highest, jumping up 14 places - out of 62 total metropolitan statistical areas I looked at. Interestingly, the Chicago MSA figure and NYC MSA figure are nearly identical with the NYC MSA above the Chicago MSA by only $367. Denver is also only $102 above Chicago in this regard. Interestingly, the Chicago MSA is over $5500 more than the San Diego MSA, over $4500 more than the Los Angeles MSA, over $4000 more than Atlanta MSA, nearly $2500 more than Dallas and Houston both, nearly $2000 above Austin, etc.

In total dollar amount change from 2010 to 2016, Chicago was the 5th highest out of 62 MSAs. Only San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and Detroit (by only $33) had a larger change. Chicago MSA's change was over 3X that of Houston MSA's. In total percent change from 2010 to 2016, Chicago MSA ranked 4th highest only behind San Jose, San Francisco, and Detroit.

Source: https://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm


2016 Real GDP Per Capita (RPPs factored in) in 2009 dollars
1. Bridgeport, CT MSA: $80,609
2. San Jose MSA: $62,590
3. San Francisco MSA: $61,639
4. Boston MSA: $57,317
5. Hartford, CT MSA: $53,048
6. Seattle MSA: $53,003
7. Omaha MSA: $52,066
8. Washington DC MSA: $50,861
9. Nashville MSA: $50,425
10. Minneapolis MSA: $50,311
11. Philadelphia MSA: $50,209
12. Tulsa MSA: $50,151
13. St. Louis MSA: $49,480
14. Cleveland MSA: $49,292
15. Cincinnati MSA: $49,278
16. Pittsburgh MSA: $49,264
17. New York City MSA: $48,992
18. Milwaukee MSA: $48,831
19. Richmond MSA: $48,800
20. Denver MSA: $48,728
21. Chicago MSA: $48,625
22. Indianapolis MSA: $48,602
23. Baltimore MSA: $48,393
24. Raleigh MSA: $47,759
25. Wichita MSA: $47,694
26. Kansas City MSA: $47,011
27. Austin MSA: $46,820
28. Birmingham, AL MSA: $46,790
29. Columbus, OH MSA: $46,550
30. Houston MSA: $46,378
31. Dallas MSA: $46,270
32. Detroit MSA: $46,061
33. Harrisburg, PA MSA: $45,859
34. Sacramento MSA: $45,693
35. Providence MSA: $45,448
36. Louisville MSA: $45,423
37. Charlotte MSA: $45,297
38. Grand Rapids MSA: $45,144
39. Portland MSA: $45,034
40. New Orleans MSA: $44,979
41. Buffalo MSA: $44,730
42. Atlanta MSA: $44,598
43. Oklahoma City MSA: $44,218
44. Los Angeles MSA: $44,087
45. Miami MSA: $44,037
46. Virginia Beach MSA: $43,574
47. Memphis MSA: $43,378
48. Jacksonville MSA: $43,091
49. San Diego MSA: $43,063
50. Rochester, NY MSA: $42,986
51. New Haven, CT MSA: $42,855
52. Little Rock MSA: $42,717
53. San Antonio MSA: $42,595
54. Salt Lake City MSA: $42,030
55. Tampa MSA: $39,843
56. Honolulu MSA: $39,555
57. Phoenix MSA: $39,455
58. Las Vegas MSA: $39,247
59. Albuquerque MSA: $37,369
60. Orlando MSA: $37,210
61. El Paso MSA: $33,731
62. Riverside, CA MSA: $31,088

Real GDP Per Capita (RPPs factored in) in 2009 dollars, Change from 2010 to 2016
1. San Jose MSA: +$13,386
2. San Francisco MSA: +$12,031
3. Seattle MSA: +$8668
4. Detroit MSA: +$8100
5. Chicago MSA: +$8067
6. Denver MSA: +$7974
7. Tulsa MSA: +$7293
8. Salt Lake City MSA: +$6727
9. Nashville MSA: +$6716
10. Grand Rapids MSA: +$6716
11. Los Angeles MSA: +$6639
12. Austin MSA: +$6596
13. Sacramento MSA: +$6592
14. Dallas MSA: +$6451
15. Philadelphia MSA: +$6333
16. Minneapolis MSA: +$6305
17. San Diego MSA: +$6302
18. Wichita MSA: +$6175
19. Portland MSA: +$6045
20. Columbus, OH MSA: +$5953
21. Cincinnati MSA: +$5911
22. New York City MSA: +$5821
23. Boston MSA: +$5750
24. Cleveland MSA: +$5661
25. Indianapolis MSA: +$5579
26. Omaha MSA: +$5478
27. Phoenix MSA: +$5262
28. Richmond MSA: +$5261
29. Atlanta MSA: +$5014
30. San Antonio MSA: +$5010
31. Charlotte MSA: +$4945
32. Louisville MSA: +$4736
33. Las Vegas MSA: +$4646
34. Baltimore MSA: +$4306
35. New Haven, CT MSA: +$4291
36. Harrisburg, PA MSA: +$4194
37. Birmingham, AL MSA: +$4169
38. Milwaukee MSA: +$4091
39. Orlando MSA: +$4059
40. Hartford, CT MSA: +$3871
41. Pittsburgh MSA: +$3856
42. Providence MSA: +$3829
43. Buffalo MSA: +$3750
44. Memphis MSA: +$3716
45. Riverside, CA MSA: +$3691
46. Miami MSA: +$3591
47. Jacksonville MSA: +$3561
48. Raleigh MSA: +$3550
49. Kansas City MSA: +$3517
50. Little Rock MSA: +$3260
51. Washington DC MSA: +$3233
52. Virginia Beach MSA: +$3096
53. Honolulu MSA: +$2911
54. Rochester, NY MSA: +$2849
55. El Paso MSA: +$2690
56. Houston MSA: +$2663
57. Albuquerque MSA: +$2628
58. St. Louis MSA: +$2550
59. Oklahoma City MSA: +$2477
60. New Orleans MSA: +$2447
61. Tampa MSA: +$1638
62. Bridgeport, CT MSA: -$5103

Real GDP Per Capita (RPPs factored in) in 2009 dollars, Percent change from 2010 to 2016
1. San Jose MSA: +27.21%
2. San Francisco MSA: +24.25%
3. Detroit MSA: +21.34%
4. Chicago MSA: +19.89%
5. Denver MSA: +19.57%
6. Seattle MSA: +19.55%
7. Salt Lake City MSA: +19.06%
8. Los Angeles MSA: +17.73%
9. Grand Rapids MSA: +17.48%
10. San Diego MSA: +17.14%
11. Tulsa MSA: +17.02%
12. Sacramento MSA: +16.86%
13. Austin MSA: +16.4%
14. Dallas MSA: +16.2%
15. Portland MSA: +15.5%
16. Phoenix MSA: +15.39%
17. Nashville MSA: +15.37%
18. Wichita MSA: +14.87%
19. Columbus, OH MSA: +14.66%
20. Philadelphia MSA: +14.43%
21. Minneapolis MSA: +14.33%
22. Cincinnati MSA: +13.63%
23. New York City MSA: +13.48%
24. Riverside, CA MSA: +13.47%
25. Las Vegas MSA: +13.43%
26. San Antonio MSA: +13.33%
27. Cleveland MSA: +12.97%
28. Indianapolis MSA: +12.97%
29. Atlanta MSA: +12.67%
30. Charlotte MSA: +12.25%
31. Orlando MSA: +12.24%
32. Richmond MSA: +12.08%
33. Omaha MSA: +11.76%
34. Louisville MSA: +11.64%
35. Boston MSA: +11.15%
36. New Haven, CT MSA: +11.13%
37. Harrisburg, PA MSA: +10.07%
38. Birmingham, AL MSA: +9.78%
39. Baltimore MSA: +9.77%
40. Memphis MSA: +9.37%
41. Providence MSA: +9.2%
42. Buffalo MSA: +9.15%
43. Milwaukee MSA: +9.14%
44. Jacksonville MSA: +9.01%
45. Miami MSA: +8.88%
46. El Paso MSA: +8.67%
47. Pittsburgh MSA: +8.49%
48. Little Rock MSA: +8.26%
49. Kansas City MSA: +8.09%
50. Raleigh MSA: +8.03%
51. Honolulu MSA: +7.94%
52. Hartford, CT MSA: +7.87%
53. Virginia Beach MSA: +7.65%
54. Albuquerque MSA: +7.56%
55. Rochester, NY MSA: +7.1%
56. Washington DC MSA: +6.79%
57. Houston MSA: +6.09%
58. Oklahoma City MSA: +5.93%
59. New Orleans MSA: +5.75%
60. St. Louis MSA: +5.43%
61. Tampa MSA: +4.29%
62. Bridgeport, CT MSA: -5.95%

[left of center]

How is GDP per capita higher in places like Cincinnati or Cleveland? Those cities have had it much rougher than Chicago as the rust belt declined over the last 50 years.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by left of center

How is GDP per capita higher in places like Cincinnati or Cleveland? Those cities have had it much rougher than Chicago as the rust belt declined over the last 50 years.

Because, as I mentioned in my post, it's adjusted using RPPs (Regional Price Parities), which is a ratio that represents the price of all goods for a particular geography versus the national average. So a higher RPP for something like rent means the rent is high in that area that you're looking at. 100 is the baseline - Chicago MSA is at 114.8 meaning the rent in the Chicago MSA is 14.8% higher than the national average for 2016. NYC area is 154.9, meaning the rent in the NYC area is 54.9% higher than the national average. Just as examples - similar to CPI.

Cleveland's 2016 per capita personal income is $6653 below that of Chicago. However, their RPP basically indicates all goods in the MSA is almost 10% under the national average, whereas Chicago is nearly 4% over the national average. So then adjust using that and the numbers become a lot closer.

It is essentially adjusting for purchasing power of goods - or things like rent - in every area. Meaning that the personal income per capita in Chicago area basically almost goes as far as the per capita personal income in the NYC area.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Because, as I mentioned in my post, it's adjusted using RPPs (Regional Price Parities), which is a ratio that represents the price of all goods for a particular geography versus the national average. So a higher RPP for something like rent means the rent is high in that area that you're looking at. 100 is the baseline - Chicago MSA is at 114.8 meaning the rent in the Chicago MSA is 14.8% higher than the national average for 2016. NYC area is 154.9, meaning the rent in the NYC area is 54.9% higher than the national average. Just as examples - similar to CPI.

It is essentially adjusting for purchasing power of goods - or things like rent - in every area. Meaning that the personal income per capita in Chicago area basically almost goes as far as the per capita personal income in the NYC area.

Thank you for the clarification, marothisu. I need to get reading glasses

[the urban politician]

Marothisu, thanks for all that data. The question is, doesn't the "RPP" factor kind of ruin this data? After all, I'm sure that can really throw a wrench into any logical discussion about rising prosperity, as the methods used to calculate "RPP" are always up for debate. I can see a Chicago-hating type like Crawford diminishing such calculations as "fake boosterism" because, after all, the cost of living in various cities isn't really all that different, blah blah blah.

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by left of center

Wow, interesting info. I had absolutely no idea that something like that ever existed in city limits. Would have been nice if the community remained centralized in order to have kept the neighborhood viable.

this is where the Nisei Lounge got its name. Never changed it