CHICAGO | General Discussions

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, they used wrong data to push a solution that they prefer. I will grant that they will need to reevaluate to some degree.

However, although the degree of the problem ended up being wrong, the actual problem is not. Not by a long shot.

And in the midst of celebrating that “hey we didn’t lose 250,000 we only lost 20,000!” I worry that people will miss out on the more insidious problem plaguing this State and that could be dangerous.

The fact of the matter is, we are still losing people—not an easy feat—while the rest of the nation is growing. “Blue” and “Red” States alike. Cold and warm weather States alike. This is a huge problem for Illinois. And even if most of the losses are downstate, that does not serve as consolation. Other States probably have shrinking rural areas, so why are they still growing (by a lot! Look at New York) while we aren’t. Why can’t Chicagoland prop up the State the way other metros are propping up theirs?

If the Census actually showed that earlier counts were completely off and that the State had actually gained hundreds of thousands of people, and hence performed similarly to other States like ours, I would expect the Tribune to post a recant of all of their earlier “Exodus from Illinois” articles.

However, in relative terms what is happening to Illinois is still dreadfully bad. So I don’t blame the Tribune for still sounding the alarm. As a huge booster of Chicago and somebody who wants the region to thrive, we need to do better than this.. If I were on the Tribune’s editorial board, I would be singing the same tune as they currently are.

Maybe the Tribune and other local news sources are part of the problem. That's what I think many of us are arguing. They are making the situation worse by continually reporting doom and gloom. Plus, downstaters mop up this information. They see "Illinois Exodus" and go running for the hills. I doubt the losses in population came from Chicagoland, it had to have been downstate (although you never know). To be fair, most of downstate has little to no economic investment or growth. But it certainly doesn't help that many people outside and inside Illinois think it's a shit hole with hundreds of thousands of people fleeing every day and that it'll become the next Detroit or something like that. Local news is making this problem worse, not better. It's not helping, and that should be an irrefutable fact.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Maybe the Tribune and other local news sources are part of the problem. That's what I think many of us are arguing. They are making the situation worse by continually reporting doom and gloom. Plus, downstaters mop up this information. They see "Illinois Exodus" and go running for the hills. I doubt the losses in population came from Chicagoland, it had to have been downstate (although you never know). To be fair, most of downstate has little to no economic investment or growth. But it certainly doesn't help that many people outside and inside Illinois think it's a shit hole with hundreds of thousands of people fleeing every day and that it'll become the next Detroit or something like that. Local news is making this problem worse, not better. It's not helping, and that should be an irrefutable fact.

Of the local news sources I subscribe to, here's how they rank in doom and gloom:

Block Club Chicago



Chicago Sun Times

Crain's





Chicago Tribune

Unfortunately, the Tribune is by far the best-resourced so I end up having to read it anyway. Crain's generally has better reporting but obviously a limited breadth of coverage.

[marothisu]

Nobody is celebrating a loss, at all. Perhaps you should read the posts more objectively. A loss is bad no matter what. All people are saying is that outside of 1 piece of commentary now (which doesn't make a trend), there is barely any accountability on the part of a newspaper to say "this is bad, but not as bad as we or anyone else expected while we wrote many articles about it."

They didn't use the wrong data either. It's the only population data available which gives any view into these things. You can't blame the Tribune at all for that, and I don't even blame them for pushing the "exodus " narrative. However, almost doubling down as if the 50k to 80k loss per year is still a fact, after the Census reported a figure almost 14X less, is disingenuous and pretty shoddy.. As journalists they should be saying "it's not nearly as bad as expected but it's still not good."

By the way, I subscribe to the online version of the Tribune. I don't think they are terrible, but they do give unequal "front page" press to various things that are doom and gloom. Usually buried down is anything ever to celebrate. And while bad news sells, and you never want to bury it, not having some sort of balance is not good. People see these things and it plays a psychological role on how they perceive their city/region. You may live on a street in Chicago, or a suburb, that never sees any issues but if the news you consume is constantly bad then it will play a role in how you actually perceive everything. I actually have friends in Chicago who subscribe to it, live in areas that don't really see these types of bad issues, but it has made them afraid of so much even though their real life experience has never had anything bad happen nor witness itz and they're all very gainfully employed.. And the Tribune, as one of the largest newspapers in the country, gets its news stories picked up much further than the Chicago region. These play a massive role in so much more than people realize.

Anyway, my own theory on this has to do with last Census. All indications are that the city population was very undercounted. I believe some people said by even as much as 100k or 200k people. It is very possible 250K people left Illinois but doesn't look like it due to undercounting in 2010. We'll probably never know for sure though.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Anyway, my own theory on this has to do with last Census. All indications are that the city population was very undercounted. I believe some people said by even as much as 100k or 200k people. It is very possible 250K people left Illinois but doesn't look like it due to undercounting in 2010. We'll probably never know for sure though.

I was heavily involved in our local census count effort for 2020.
Speaking at least for this little slice of Cook County, the self-response rates among Hispanics and working class/lower-income renters were exceedingly low. Like, 50-60%.

And the Census Bureau did not inspire confidence in the level of organization and reporting for the door-to-door follow-ups that started in summer time. Even if the the door-to-door operation had been a model of Swiss efficiency and precision, the pandemic made face-to-face contact and intercepts that much more difficult.

We have hundreds of semi-formally subdivided 2-flats, 3-flats and apartments over storefronts (semi-formal = no separate address with the post office, no history of building permits, etc.) and could never get confirmation from the CB as to whether they incorporated our supplementary info for their in person follow-ups.

It'll be impossible to say for sure until place-, tract-, or block-level counts are released, but until seeing those, and being able to reality check against other data points like school enrollments, water billings, and block-by-block intel, I'm going to be skeptical of the counts in any places that have large proportions of the above populations.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so with construction officially starting at 345 N Union, is that only the 3rd tower over 300' to start construction since the pandemic began a year ago march?

unless i'm missing something, i can only think of Salesforce and 300 NMA as the other two.

I know that the idea of a "cycle" is entirely arbitrary, but what should we consider to be the start of a new cycle in the 2020s? Personally, I'd say anything starting construction after the start of the pandemic (March 2020) should count. So these three buildings would be the only ones over 300' starting construction in the past year of this cycle. That's pretty crazy.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

I know that the idea of a "cycle" is entirely arbitrary, but what should we consider to be the start of a new cycle in the 2020s?

it makes sense on a certain level.

i mean, the pandemic kind of changed everything everywhere.

decades in the future we may even come to look back at it as a "pre-war / post-war" kind of event.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it makes sense on a certain level.

i mean, the pandemic kind of changed everything everywhere.

decades in the future we may even come to look back at it as a "pre-war / post-war" kind of event.

I think this is a spot on take. From End of WWII, end of the Cold War, to 9/11 ending peace/prosperity of the 90s, now Covid will mark the turning point into I believe a greater focus on domestic issues like civil unrest and political extremism, and an increasing focus on a emboldened China.

[the urban politician]

^ Interesting

Pre-Covid and post-Covid

My feeling on this keeps going back and forth. I worry about the demand for city living, but ultimately I think the city’s amenities will win out and this will end up being more of a hiccup.

Check out the Economy thread where Chicago Business Journal is reporting that office demand has already returned to pre-pandemic levels

Bear in mind that this probably doesn’t take into account significant rent reductions and other sweeteners office landlords are forced to offer to bring in tenants, paralleling what apartment landlords are having to do. So even though 95% occupancy looks great on paper and makes us feel that things are back to “normal”, the lowered rents and concessions DO have a negative impact on price valuations of all of these buildings, ultimately reducing the amount owners and developers can leverage against.

These lower rental comps ultimately make it harder for new projects to pencil out. It won’t be occupancy that will really tell us when we are back from the doldrums of the pandemic. It will be rent/SF

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Interesting

Pre-Covid and post-Covid

My feeling on this keeps going back and forth. I worry about the demand for city living, but ultimately I think the city’s amenities will win out and this will end up being more of a hiccup.

Check out the Economy thread where Chicago Business Journal is reporting that office demand has already returned to pre-pandemic levels

Bear in mind that this probably doesn’t take into account significant rent reductions and other sweeteners office landlords are forced to offer to bring in tenants, paralleling what apartment landlords are having to do. So even though 95% occupancy looks great on paper and makes us feel that things are back to “normal”, the lowered rents and concessions DO have a negative impact on price valuations of all of these buildings, ultimately reducing the amount owners and developers can leverage against.

These lower rental comps ultimately make it harder for new projects to pencil out. It won’t be occupancy that will really tell us when we are back from the doldrums of the pandemic. It will be rent/SF

With the price trends consisting of dropping prices in the cities and rising in the suburbs, I wonder if there will actually be a 'boomerang' effect where people starting migrating back into the cities to avoid the huge price jumps in the suburbs...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

With the price trends consisting of dropping prices in the cities and rising in the suburbs, I wonder if there will actually be a 'boomerang' effect where people starting migrating back into the cities to avoid the huge price jumps in the suburbs...

I definitely do NOT see any chance of this happening. I don’t believe there is any precedent for suburbanites to move en masse to the city just because it’s cheap. In fact, that would be a very bad thing.

Anyhow, staying to the topic of this thread, we NEED office/commercial/residential rents in the core of the city to remain high if we want to keep seeing new skyscrapers getting built.

I am thinking/assuming that LL gets that. More and more things are opening up, despite the fact that we haven’t reached herd immunity. City and municipal leaders are surely getting desperate at this point, knowing full well that we either revive this economy or we are going to really be on a path to destruction.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I definitely do NOT see any chance of this happening. I don’t believe there is any precedent for suburbanites to move en masse to the city just because it’s cheap. In fact, that would be a very bad thing.

It doesn't need to happen en masse and lots of things going on right now have little precedent. On the other hand, we have a record number of 18-29 year-olds living at home, 5% more than pre-pandemic. That 5% additional people living at home represents about 2.5 million people aged 18-29. At some point, they will likely want to move out of their parent's home. Will they move to the suburbs or the city?

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I definitely do NOT see any chance of this happening. I don’t believe there is any precedent for suburbanites to move en masse to the city just because it’s cheap. In fact, that would be a very bad thing.

I read some press about this happening in NYC last year. Rents became more affordable in the city due to the pandemic and people adjusted their behavior accordingly.

Obviously if housing is empty and getting torn down because the demand isn't there at any price, sure "there is no precedent for that"... in the 1970's and 80's! Americans who are older than 35 and younger than 80 have a pretty myopic view of the history of cities, where cities either staying the same or getting worse due to a supply shock in the suburbs is the only pattern they are familiar with. In most of the world in the last 50 years, and in the U.S. during most of its history, supply and demand still apples to realty.

People balance a variety of factors when deciding where to live. And in an otherwise desirable location if the price falls, people adjust their behavior.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I read some press about this happening in NYC last year. Rents became more affordable in the city due to the pandemic and people adjusted their behavior accordingly.

Obviously if housing is empty and getting torn down because the demand isn't there at any price, sure "there is no precedent for that"... in the 1970's and 80's! Americans who are older than 35 and younger than 80 have a pretty myopic view of the history of cities, where cities either staying the same or getting worse due to a supply shock in the suburbs is the only pattern they are familiar with. In most of the world in the last 50 years, and in the U.S. during most of its history, supply and demand still apples to realty.

People balance a variety of factors when deciding where to live. And in an otherwise desirable location if the price falls, people adjust their behavior.

I know multiple people in nyc who moved to larger apartments in Manhattan because rent prices for awhile had dropped a lot there. Some other coworkers of mine in their early to mid 20s had also moved in with their parents if they were from the area so they could save money. Now they are trying to find new leases in the city as there is some sort of return to the office on the horizon.

I think it'll happen though not en masse. People moved out of cities mainly because so much shut down. Many amenities that attracted them to city life were no longer open, plus uncertainty around when things would come back. Some left because of the unrest and some left because they figured it's a good time to have a kid. Those people would have left anyway. Since the suburbs are on average cheaper than say Manhattan or downtown Chicago...many people did make the move. I have read multiple articles though from people who did this and regretted it. They will probably cash out and move back to whichever city they came from.

I think the "afraid of a virus in a dense city" bit is overplayed. It might have made some people germophobes but I think it's made more people cautious but mostly not detracted those who already liked the idea of urban living. Even in nyc during all this, many people were carrying on. Contrary to what the media said, it was never truly dead here. Sure, there were less people out but that still equates to more than most any city. Levels on the street were like comfortable areas in downtown Chicago during during normal summer (not Michigan Ave levels).

I find that people tend to overreact in these situations for predicting the future just as they predicted 9/11 was the end of urban living too. It might not kick instantly back up, but in a few years my guess is that a lot of people will forget, as there's not another pandemic, and they will fall back to the same thoughts as before of walkability and closely amenities.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

With the price trends consisting of dropping prices in the cities and rising in the suburbs, I wonder if there will actually be a 'boomerang' effect where people starting migrating back into the cities to avoid the huge price jumps in the suburbs...

This is something I am looking into myself. Not from the perspective of the Suburbs getting too expensive but as an owner looking to cash out of those fast rising home values to make the jump to urban living. Even further more moving from Sun Belt to urban Midwest with Chicago being the top choice. I know of no one else looking to do the same. That said I do know plenty of people that are chasing cheaper places to live but that is mainly just suburban to suburban.

[Vlajos]

Of course a loss of 20k people is better than a loss of 250k people. But only 2 other states in the country lost population and every state that borders Illinois is growing. Something is very wrong with our state. There is nothing to celebrate with this census. It's just not as bad as we thought.

[the urban politician]

I used to read the Sun Times but I pretty much quit a few years ago. I find their website really annoying to navigate. I do like Ed Zotti’s column on Chicago, though

[the urban politician]

I am curious to see how downtown Chicago will be like this summer.

I’m hoping for the crowded, vibrant place that I know and remember. I’m guessing it will be close to that but still not quite. Perhaps we will be there by summer 2022

[Tom In Chicago]

[MODERATOR NOTE] Moved Jahn posts >>> HERE <<<

. . .

[Klippenstein]

Not sure if anybody posted this study yet about the loss of 2-4 unit buildings in Chicago.

https://www.housingstudies.org/relea...dings-chicago/

More than other residential properties, IHS analysis shows that 2 to 4 unit buildings were more significantly impacted by foreclosure during the Great Recession than other property types with nearly 30 percent of 2 to 4 unit parcels associated with at least one foreclosure filing since 2005. In the years following the Great Recession, as rental housing demand and the overall rental supply in Chicago grew, the city still saw losses to the 2 to 4 rental stock. IHS's upcoming State of Rental Housing in Cook County report finds that between 2012 and 2019, the city lost roughly 6 percent of its 2 to 4 unit rental stock. As this analysis will show, it is likely that many of these units have been permanently lost to conversion or demolition and, once lost, are unlikely to be replaced and if replaced are unlikely to be affordable. Due to the importance of this type of housing, it is critical to affordable housing policy to understand the factors driving the loss and instability of these rental units and buildings in different neighborhood market contexts. Without intervention, this essential component of Chicago's affordable housing stock could be further threatened by the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[OrdoSeclorum]

It turns out that Chicago, Philly and Raleigh were the top three choices for Amazon's HQ2 and that Bezos just made a decision with his gut.

Ignoring the specific details, the fundamentals as judged by Amazon exist and are real. These three locations are among the best choices for growth like this in the future, regardless of what happened in the Amazon situation. I believe Raleigh is getting a large new Apple R&D facility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/b...rad-stone.html