CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[Tom In Chicago]

^Jeezus. . . where is the Census Bureau getting there 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 data from?!?

. . .

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

Crain's has an article with data about home values in the city vs suburbs. Prices have been lower than 1-year-ago for the past six months. Of course, they waited until after hitting on crime and remote work to say this:



Not great news, I wonder if people are actually switching to rentals because of high interest rates, makes sense when we have record low inventory for sale.



They really can't help themselves.

The Case-Schiller index has metro Chicago prices increasing 4% YOY through March, which was fairly high given many markets were declining

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-p...iller-index-finds-6ba5cf70?mod=home-page

Though that does not tell you the dynamics of what is happening within the market, home supply etc.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

The Case-Schiller index has metro Chicago prices increasing 4% YOY through March, which was fairly high given many markets were declining

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/home-p...iller-index-finds-6ba5cf70?mod=home-page

Though that does not tell you the dynamics of what is happening within the market, home supply etc.

I believe Case Schiller Index data is for the whole metro area, Crain's breaks it down by city and suburbs. They are saying the suburbs have been up enough to make up for declines in the city market.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

I believe Case Schiller Index data is for the whole metro area, Crain's breaks it down by city and suburbs. They are saying the suburbs have been up enough to make up for declines in the city market.

Yes, exactly

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^Jeezus. . . where is the Census Bureau getting there 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 data from?!?

. . .

Depends what people think of the Census figures

New Illinois population census data questioned

https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2023/04/14/illinois-population-census-data-concerns

[marothisu]

The Crain's article data is so superficial. There are no comp comparison, no price per square foot, etc.The Case-Shiller Index is way more comprehensive and has chicago up YTD and YOY. Both measures have Chicago as 5th highest out of the 20 monitored. The number of employed residents is also the 2nd highest for April 2023 of any month since at least January 1990.

I'm a broken record, but the Census data that people keep quoting is completely inaccurate for Illinois, Chicago and it's area, NYC and its area, etc. I think the Census may be working on rectifying this but it may be until next year when we start seeing more accurate info.

It's kind of funny how Case Shiller is up, we are at record high employment for the last 33 years (even when the city had a documented 200K+ more people), rental.prices increasing, etc but people will look only at data that doesn't actually jibe with it and completely throw omit it. There's a lot of things going on and a lot can be true at once but the narrative of a "burning" city is completely inaccurate.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Depends what people think of the Census figures

New Illinois population census data questioned

https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2023/04/14/illinois-population-census-data-concerns

I've been talking about this on here.for years. The estimates that everyone quotes had Illinois losing over 240K people. Then the actual 2020 Census came out and showed it was 18K loss. Then the Census said it was a statistically significant undercounting. Even if you throw that last part away, the Census was off by over 13X. They estimated a loss for Chicago, NYC, etc but all gained population. From a purely objective statistical and scientific perspective, everyone shouldn't be using these estimates for Chicago, NYC, etc especially because they did not adjust methodologies. The ACS and Census are 2 different programs and they don't mix methodologies. The 2021 ACS is a continuation of thr previous ACS estimates. They should not be compared to the actual 10 year Census. Not only is the media negligent to this but also negligent to the fact of reporting these estimates which were recently proven to be extremely inaccurate.

Anybody who is using this data willingly and knowing what I detailed above should be absolutely ridiculed. It's completely 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 stupid for anyone who understands this as well as science/stats to even want to use that data.

Meanwhile Chicago is at 33 year record employment for its resident population.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

I believe Case Schiller Index data is for the whole metro area, Crain's breaks it down by city and suburbs. They are saying the suburbs have been up enough to make up for declines in the city market.

Median price by itself isn’t the most useful metric without context. Especially when inventory is so drastically low.

For example, if inventory on the North side is so locked up and scarce that prospective buyers are looking further West and South, then the result would be lower median sales prices and a very happy city.

It’s also possible that higher interest rates mean a lot of buyers have no choice but to look for lower priced homes.

In any case, low inventory and insane rental markets probably means that crime and population loss is not the correct answer. Just going out on a limb.

But that would require investigation and research, which our local news seem incapable of providing.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I've been talking about this on here.for years. The estimates that everyone quotes had Illinois losing over 240K people. Then the actual 2020 Census came out and showed it was 18K loss. Then the Census said it was a statistically significant undercounting. Even if you throw that last part away, the Census was off by over 13X. They estimated a loss for Chicago, NYC, etc but all gained population. From a purely objective statistical and scientific perspective, everyone shouldn't be using these estimates for Chicago, NYC, etc especially because they did not adjust methodologies. The ACS and Census are 2 different programs and they don't mix methodologies. The 2021 ACS is a continuation of thr previous ACS estimates. They should not be compared to the actual 10 year Census. Not only is the media negligent to this but also negligent to the fact of reporting these estimates which were recently proven to be extremely inaccurate.

Anybody who is using this data willingly and knowing what I detailed above should be absolutely ridiculed. It's completely 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 stupid for anyone who understands this as well as science/stats to even want to use that data.

Meanwhile Chicago is at 33 year record employment for its resident population.

I agree, it appears that much of these estimates of population losses in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc., are narrative driven. Each of these cities actually gained substantial population gains between 2010-2020, now to say they have lost populations ranging from almost 100,000 to 200,000 each in two years is very unlikely and suspect. This same narrative plays out in crime. Whenever Chicago has an unusual week of elevated crime, it is reported all over the local, national, and international news, and all you hear is how violent and dangerous, and unredeemable Chicago is. But when you have a weekend when it is a lot less elevated, it's barely a mention, or credit given to the Police Department. because it doesn't fit the narrative, especially by Fox news.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by skysoar

I agree, it appears that much of these estimates of population losses in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc., are narrative driven. Each of these cities actually gained substantial population gains between 2010-2020, now to say they have lost populations ranging from almost 100,000 to 200,000 each in two years is very unlikely and suspect. This same narrative plays out in crime. Whenever Chicago has an unusual week of elevated crime, it is reported all over the local, national, and international news, and all you hear is how violent and dangerous, and unredeemable Chicago is. But when you have a weekend when it is a lot less elevated, it's barely a mention, or credit given to the Police Department. because it doesn't fit the narrative, especially by Fox news.

Absolutely. Shitting on cities is in. Journalism these days is mostly dead and people will just write articles for clicks. As someone who has contributed to a handful of Crains articles, I'll tell you with first hand certainty that they're mostly clueless. They rely too much on some people like me to tell them things. Often times they look for confirmation of a theory and not going where the data tells them. Things that take 5 minutes of investigation and they'll act like it's some crazy revelation and it's hard to find out. There's examples of articles written in the same week there that are about the same topic but are completelycontradictory ("house prices are up" vs. "house prices are down.")

The ACS and popest programs don't really consider the 10 year Census from a methodology perspective. And if you don't consider the 10 year census in the trend and only focus on comparing numbers inside the same program program it makes more sense. A city losing 100K population in a year right now is extremely far fetched and the Census knows it. You can look at examples in Chicago. There's a tract for example in Humboldt Park or nearby in West Town that was estimated up until 2020 to have 900 some people. Then the 10 year Census comes out and the count in 2020 was actually 2000 to 2200 people. The estimate was WAY off. Then 2021 ACS comes out and it's back down to 900 people for 2021. The reality is that they didn't consider the 10 year Census because it's a different program and methodology. The 2021 estimate was a continuation of the 2020 estimate and not about the real count via 2020 10 year census. The Census tract didn't magically gain 1100 to 1300 people in a year and magically lose them all the following year. The same thing is going on a macro scale with the estimates with Chicago, LA, NYC, SF, etc. They were all under estimated and the newest estimates didn't change methodology or even consider it. They just continued from the previous estimates which look like big losses but actually arent. Hopefully they fix this soon.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Median price by itself isn’t the most useful metric without context. Especially when inventory is so drastically low.

For example, if inventory on the North side is so locked up and scarce that prospective buyers are looking further West and South, then the result would be lower median sales prices and a very happy city.

It’s also possible that higher interest rates mean a lot of buyers have no choice but to look for lower priced homes.

In any case, low inventory and insane rental markets probably means that crime and population loss is not the correct answer. Just going out on a limb.

But that would require investigation and research, which our local news seem incapable of providing.

Yep. The fact they aren't comparing comps is also suspect. You nay have had a bunch of 2+ bedrooms in 1 neighborhood sell last year but this year it's mostly 1 bedrooms due to inventory, demand at each level, etc. There's also sub markets such as the luxury market. With lower inventory, some people may be more willing to wait for something of their liking and higher standard. So many factors. They should be comparing price per sq ft in comps and not just 1 number that encompasses all sales without diving into.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Absolutely. Shitting on cities is in. Journalism these days is mostly dead and people will just write articles for clicks. As someone who has contributed to a handful of Crains articles, I'll tell you with first hand certainty that they're mostly clueless. They rely too much on some people like me to tell them things. Often times they look for confirmation of a theory and not going where the data tells them. Things that take 5 minutes of investigation and they'll act like it's some crazy revelation and it's hard to find out. There's examples of articles written in the same week there that are about the same topic but are completelycontradictory ("house prices are up" vs. "house prices are down.")

The ACS and popest programs don't really consider the 10 year Census from a methodology perspective. And if you don't consider the 10 year census in the trend and only focus on comparing numbers inside the same program program it makes more sense. A city losing 100K population in a year right now is extremely far fetched and the Census knows it. You can look at examples in Chicago. There's a tract for example in Humboldt Park or nearby in West Town that was estimated up until 2020 to have 900 some people. Then the 10 year Census comes out and the count in 2020 was actually 2000 to 2200 people. The estimate was WAY off. Then 2021 ACS comes out and it's back down to 900 people for 2021. The reality is that they didn't consider the 10 year Census because it's a different program and methodology. The 2021 estimate was a continuation of the 2020 estimate and not about the real count via 2020 10 year census. The Census tract didn't magically gain 1100 to 1300 people in a year and magically lose them all the following year. The same thing is going on a macro scale with the estimates with Chicago, LA, NYC, SF, etc. They were all under estimated and the newest estimates didn't change methodology or even consider it. They just continued from the previous estimates which look like big losses but actually arent. Hopefully they fix this soon.

Dumb question because I'm not that bright: can municipalities sue the US Census Bureau for not providing accurate population numbers (or even better approximations), especially when it can affect federal funding that is based on population numbers?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Dumb question because I'm not that bright: can municipalities sue the US Census Bureau for not providing accurate population numbers (or even better approximations), especially when it can affect federal funding that is based on population numbers?

Not sure about "sue" but each city csn challenge and ask for a recount. Rahm did it for Chicago for the 2010 Census. There were large swaths of the south side especially where Census workers refused to work in or cover as much ground as they should have. The Census still refused. This time around there were other challenges from other cities. I'm not sure if anyone has sued based on extremely inaccurate esrimstes.

One of the Illestimates is challenging tho for all the reasons I've stated in here for multiple years. As everyone knows, I pay attention to a lot more than just population and Census numbers. It's hard to have a narrative of severe population loss when 1) you know how the Census actually works with ACS, popest, and the decennial and 2) when we are ar record employment levels for the last 33 years.

I think some politicians are finally waking up to the fact that the Census numbers have been pretty inaccurate of late for some areas. There is a smaller city on Long Island in NY that is questioning too. They have tons of data and are showing very low housing vacancy, record levels of construction, employment, etc and the Census still claims they're losing people

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Not sure about "sue" but each city csn challenge and ask for a recount. Rahm did it for Chicago for the 2010 Census. There were large swaths of the south side especially where Census workers refused to work in or cover as much ground as they should have. The Census still refused. This time around there were other challenges from other cities. I'm not sure if anyone has sued based on extremely inaccurate esrimstes.

One of the Illestimates is challenging tho for all the reasons I've stated in here for multiple years. As everyone knows, I pay attention to a lot more than just population and Census numbers. It's hard to have a narrative of severe population loss when 1) you know how the Census actually works with ACS, popest, and the decennial and 2) when we are ar record employment levels for the last 33 years.

I think some politicians are finally waking up to the fact that the Census numbers have been pretty inaccurate of late for some areas. There is a smaller city on Long Island in NY that is questioning too. They have tons of data and are showing very low housing vacancy, record levels of construction, employment, etc and the Census still claims they're losing people

Great explanation, thank you!

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Dumb question because I'm not that bright: can municipalities sue the US Census Bureau for not providing accurate population numbers (or even better approximations), especially when it can affect federal funding that is based on population numbers?

See Detroit:

Duggan unleashes on Twitter, calls US Census Bureau 'clown show' over population numbers

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/m...census-bureau-tweet-twitter/70232003007/

Detroit sues Census in 2nd fight over population counts

https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-detr...olitics-f02a419f415d12bfff3e6796f2b91133


Ensuring accuracy is something Congress should be addressing

[Randomguy34]

Another reason to be skeptical of comparing Census and ACS numbers: There are claims that San Francisco lost over 7% of it's population during the pandemic. That's over 60k people in two years, a number way too high to be trustworthy

San Francisco's population hit hard amid pandemic, Census data shows
https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisc...sco-population-change-2020-2022-pandemic

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

See Detroit:

Duggan unleashes on Twitter, calls US Census Bureau 'clown show' over population numbers

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/m...census-bureau-tweet-twitter/70232003007/

Detroit sues Census in 2nd fight over population counts

https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-detr...olitics-f02a419f415d12bfff3e6796f2b91133


Ensuring accuracy is something Congress should be addressing

Here’s a little nugget of information from WBEZ that supports the idea of very low vacancy in the city right now.

In census tracts that had the largest black population loss, new construction has begun to outpace demolitions. The uptick in the ratio started in 2019 and accelerated by 2022. Clearly something was happening that was not mass abandonment.

WBEZ analyzed the number of building permits issued for new construction and demolition in Chicago. We considered the ratio of new construction permits to demolition permits as a measure of development growth — more building than demolishing. That ratio is much lower in areas where the Black population has declined the most over the past two decades. Since 2010, there have been almost three times as many demolition permits issued than new construction permits in those areas. The picture is reversed for the remainder of the city where new construction permits have nearly doubled demolition permits since 2010.

https://www.wbez.org/stories/chicago-bla...oss/6d880f62-ba00-4b44-9e0a-57c50fc4f51d

[Tom In Chicago]

^This coincides with what I've been seeing on the street - anecdotally - for the last 20 years. . . most of the construction in Chicago is not high rise development downtown, but rather infill in the neighborhoods. . . I'll have to look at Google Earth's way-back satellite views to see if this is as dramatic as I suspect it will be, but it's been something on my mind all this time as I get around town. . .

. . .

[jboy560]

I recall being a little shocked when ChicagoYIMBY reported a renovation permit issued to rehab a (very) vacant apartment building in Englewood (6055 S Peoria). If we’re starting to see new construction and rehabs, without subsidies, in Englewood then we’ve really turned a corner, I think. It started with the South Lakefront but seems to be spreading at a remarkable pace to other neighborhoods which is great to see. Investment in every neighborhood should be celebrated, imo, especially when it doesn’t displace anyone.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/05/renovat...r-6055-s-peoria-street-in-englewood.html

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^This coincides with what I've been seeing on the street - anecdotally - for the last 20 years. . . most of the construction in Chicago is not high rise development downtown, but rather infill in the neighborhoods. . . I'll have to look at Google Earth's way-back satellite views to see if this is as dramatic as I suspect it will be, but it's been something on my mind all this time as I get around town. . .

. . .

I have data on this from my map back to 2012. I'm currently associating each permit to a community area. Pretty close to done and I'll share the data soon. Woodlawn, Douglas, Grand Boulevard, Oakland, and Kenwood have had a few thousand new units issued since 2012 (counting SFH).