CHICAGO | General Developments

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Why does a family need to live in a SFH? I knew plenty of kids growing up living in small apartment buildings from Lincoln Square to Hyde Park.

I'd also be happy to see more families living downtown, in less expensive loft buildings and high-rise condos built in the 70-80s.

In one way, I can see where you are coming from in that American's continue to yearn for larger lots and larger houses in a way that probably isn't going to be sustainable in the long term, and that families of modest means can certainly make a nice life in a 3 flat or bungalow or small building in one of the outer neighborhoods. But if a family desires a larger home and lot and better weather, AND there is a place in the country where they can achieve that, then how are we going to stop them.

I don't think the area around and in downtown will ever be practical for families as the rent or price and taxes for even a vintage 3 bedroom is out of reach for most American families.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I just signed a contract with a buyer at $395k for a gut rehabbed 5 bed, 2.5 bath bungalow I renovated just outside of Avondale and Old Irving Park in Belmont Cragin. While that might sound pricey, it's totally affordable for a household with $100k/yr combined income. Similar houses that haven't been totally rebuilt sell for $250k in good condition in that area. If you think Chicago has an affordability problem you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

And on the point of school quality, I've repeated myself like a broken record: CPS does not have a funding problem, it does not have a teacher problem, it does not have a facilities problem, it does not have a violence problem, it has a parent problem. The reason so many schools are poor quality is that the students in them come from families that are unwilling or unable to provide the necessary support and involvement to give their kids the education they need. As soon as parents with the resources or family structure necessary to support their children's education move into an area, the schools start to change overnight. This is no secret and has been happening constantly as the gentrification has spread outwards from the north side. Anecdotal example: Schurz High School on the NW side which was notoriously poor quality and even dangerous just five or ten years ago has been coopted by legions of yuppies piling into Avondale, Portage Park, and Old Irving Park. It now ranks much higher in quality and features international baccalaureate programs. This change will only continue to intensify over the coming years and the improving school quality in the area jacks up land values creating a virtuous (or evil if you ask the Somos Logan square commies) feedback loop. Now you can find quarter block or larger developments of $500k new SFHs even West of Cicero and South of Irving.

But I digress, the point is that If you took the entire staff and facilities of the worst school in Chicago, lifted it up on jacks and rolled it into Lincoln Park and populated it with Lincoln Park students, it would become one of the best schools in the city instantly. People talk about school quality as if it is some sort of permanent rigid thing totally impermutable rock lodged in the sands of time when in reality it is totally fluid and linked almost solely to the resources dedicated to pupils outside of classroom hours.

[urbanpln]

This article from "Bloomberg" really captures some of what's going on in this region (see link below). We have severe problems that can probably be addressed with the right leadership. That leadership should be a private/public partnership.

This region is going thru a painful, long term economic restructuring, and if it's not handle correctly it will continue to fall behind. Years of bad leadership and political decisions have caught up with us. We need smarter leaders who are not self serving, and who will listen and consider a variety of opinions to improve the economy and quality of life. This mean making unpopular decisions, and pissing off lots of people. Other cold weather cities have done it. We also have a very fractured and divided populace which is one of the problems that occur when you have too many units of government. There are tons of things that need changing, but i'm not going to try to cover them.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ght-in-chicago

[the urban politician]

You guys keep talking about the city. You do realize that the entire metro is losing population, right?

Thus this discussion about families leaving the city is quite narrow.

The metropolitan area has never lost population. Now it is.

I blame our Government. They are too dysfunctional.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You guys keep talking about the city. You do realize that the entire metro is losing population, right?

Thus this discussion about families leaving the city is quite narrow.

The metropolitan area has never lost population. Now it is.

I blame our Government. They are too dysfunctional.

The article focuses on the Chicago region.

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, the Chicago metro. I'm not getting what you are trying to clarify.

This is not city vs suburbs here. Yet forumers here talk about the issue of families moving to the burbs as if they have no idea what the article just revealed. The Chicago area lost population for the 1st time ever, 2 years in a row.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, the Chicago metro. I'm not getting what you are trying to clarify.

This is not city vs suburbs here. Yet forumers here talk about the issue of families moving to the burbs as if they have no idea what the article just revealed. The Chicago area lost population for the 1st time ever, 2 years in a row.

I'm not making it a city vs suburbs issue. I am agreeing with you, and like you, I'm also blaming the politicians (both sides).

[chicubs111]

The metro population loss is disturbing...firstly since its the second year in a row and secondly it increased its losses from last year...I hope its a short trend...I do believe the city is losing population too but at a much slower rate...im just hoping we can make a turn and the city itself can start growing and re-enegerize the surrounding areas...

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

...
And on the point of school quality, I've repeated myself like a broken record: CPS does not have a funding problem, it does not have a teacher problem, it does not have a facilities problem, it does not have a violence problem, it has a parent problem. The reason so many schools are poor quality is that the students in them come from families that are unwilling or unable to provide the necessary support and involvement to give their kids the education they need. As soon as parents with the resources or family structure necessary to support their children's education move into an area, the schools start to change overnight. This is no secret and has been happening constantly as the gentrification has spread outwards from the north side. Anecdotal example: Schurz High School on the NW side which was notoriously poor quality and even dangerous just five or ten years ago has been coopted by legions of yuppies piling into Avondale, Portage Park, and Old Irving Park. It now ranks much higher in quality and features international baccalaureate programs. This change will only continue to intensify over the coming years and the improving school quality in the area jacks up land values creating a virtuous (or evil if you ask the Somos Logan square commies) feedback loop. Now you can find quarter block or larger developments of $500k new SFHs even West of Cicero and South of Irving.

But I digress, the point is that If you took the entire staff and facilities of the worst school in Chicago, lifted it up on jacks and rolled it into Lincoln Park and populated it with Lincoln Park students, it would become one of the best schools in the city instantly. People talk about school quality as if it is some sort of permanent rigid thing totally impermutable rock lodged in the sands of time when in reality it is totally fluid and linked almost solely to the resources dedicated to pupils outside of classroom hours.

I agree that many of CPS problems are cultural from the families of their students. However that is not the entire problem. CPS, as an organization, has some serious bureaucratic issues. I've seen cases of them not listening to parents who are interested in being involved. I've seen cases of the parents of special needs students not being advised that they are entitled to an individualized plan for their child to address the special needs. I've seen other things that are examples of an organization that has often grown apathetic and cynical.

[pilsenarch]

I think that Chicago has little to worry about in the long run... with global warming, the winters might improve, but most importantly, we sit next to one of the largest fresh water sources in the world...

[marothisu]

The whole "Metro area is losing" population thing is interesting. When you say "the metro area has never lost population, until now" you are comparing decennial censuses (every 10 years) previously to this, which is a yearly estimation (and different from the ACS by the way). It's completely possible that sometime since 1950, for a year or two, the metro area lost population from one year to the next. Since that number was never estimated publicly though, you don't think the metro area has lost population. It's a completely incomplete statement not based off of complete evidence.


In any case, I saw an article today from Crain's in which a demographer states that the people leaving are most likely the ones who got screwed up by the recession but couldn't move away due to economic reasons (or something else). I would probably agree with that assessment considering both the city and area are basically at 10 year highs for employment.

Trying to draw a conclusion from one population statistic is extremely naive and shows a lack of understanding of any type of serious economics. You have to ask who is leaving, who is coming, why are the people coming and leaving, what is the jobs situation, what is the income situation, is the rate over time of certain groups of people leaving decreasing while others are increasing, etc. There are a lot of factors which you need to form an actual picture about the health of something.

For example, we can look at the labor situation (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics) versus when this estimate was baselining which is June 2016 and also June 2015:

Employment
* June 2006, Chicago MSA: 4,608,798
* June 2015, Chicago MSA: 4,660,559
* June 2016, Chicago MSA: 4,705,546
Difference (2015 to 2016): +44,987 (+0.97%)

* June 2006, Chicago city: 1,233,423
* June 2015, Chicago city: 1,288,942
* June 2016, Chicago city: 1,315,185
Difference (2015 to 2016): +26,243 (+2.04%)


Unemployment
* June 2006, Chicago MSA: 233,281
* June 2015, Chicago MSA: 300,192
* June 2016, Chicago MSA: 277,763
Difference (2015 to 2016): -22,429 (-7.47%)

* June 2006, Chicago city: 75,062
* June 2015, Chicago city: 95,292
* June 2016, Chicago city: 87,989
Difference (2015 to 2016): -7303 (-7.66%)

Labor Force
* June 2006, Chicago MSA: 4,841,731
* June 2015, Chicago MSA: 4,957,812
* June 2016, Chicago MSA: 5,054,240
Difference (2015 to 2016): +96,428 (+1.94%)

* June 2006, Chicago city: 1,307,358
* June 2015, Chicago city: 1,381,997
* June 2016, Chicago city: 1,411,048
Difference (2015 to 2016): +29,051 (+2.10%)

Unemployment Rate
* June 2006, Chicago MSA: 4.8%
* June 2015, Chicago MSA: 6.0%
* June 2016, Chicago MSA: 6.0%
Difference (2015 to 2016): Unchanged

* June 2006, Chicago city: 5.7%
* June 2015, Chicago city: 6.7%
* June 2016, Chicago city: 6.8%
Difference (2015 to 2016):Increase of 0.1% NOTE: Last official numbers (Nov 2016) show it as 6.1%

So what's going on here? Both the MSA and city increased the number of people in its labor force from 2015 to 2016, increased the amount of employed people from 2015 to 2016, and decreased the amount of unemployed people. Obviously there's something else going on there. While these numbers aren't eye popping, they are not a decline at all. They're still a growth in the labor market of the city and area. If you look at the population changes of just the city over the last few years, the areas losing population are the ones that are more blue collar which is why I tend to agree with the demographer of the article. The city as a whole is not necessarily in decline - overall it's actually the opposite but certain aspects of the city are in decline which are the reasons why we have areas like downtown, wicker park, logan square, etc which are growing pretty healthily or fast but the entire city looks more flat.

I think that the city's plan to invest $100M in areas that need it will be very important. If successful, it should turn around what looks like slow growth overall into a little bit faster growth overall and not just in a few areas. Hopefully it works. However, in my estimation we'll probably see pretty small changes one way or another but will hit an equilibrium point in regards to this and it'll eventually flip. Most of the people who want to leave have already left or are in the process of doing it. The amount of people in the declining areas is going to decrease year over year for awhile until this equilibrium point. The $100M plan should help with that overall and turn it more positive in these areas.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

I agree that many of CPS problems are cultural from the families of their students. However that is not the entire problem. CPS, as an organization, has some serious bureaucratic issues. I've seen cases of them not listening to parents who are interested in being involved. I've seen cases of the parents of special needs students not being advised that they are entitled to an individualized plan for their child to address the special needs. I've seen other things that are examples of an organization that has often grown apathetic and cynical.

Yeah, it can take two to tango but the families need to be involved too. I remember growing up which had excellent public schools - they were held to a higher standard because most of my peers' families held education as pretty important. I can remember enough kids complaining about a teacher being so bad that parents actually stepped in and got some action about that teacher at the school district level. Of course that school district was smaller than Chicago, but at the end of the day the parents/guardians are very important to school.

[the urban politician]

Good breakdown, Marothisu. And I agree that our peak employment flies in the face of the other data.

But the fact that we are decreasing the most in the nation is still concerning. I do know that we have to find our way out of this budget/pension hump before we regain any semblance of regional confidence again. People are fed up, and it's not just the Tea Party freaks any more

[urbanpln]

Several midwestern cities loss population for a 2nd year in a row. They include cities like Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cleveland, and others. It seems like population decline is continuing thru out the industrial midwest. One of the reasons that has been documented, at least in the Chicago region, is a decrease in immigration due to slow economic growth. Chicago and Emanuel can't pull the region out of this alone. I still believe it has to be a coordinated effort across the 7 county region.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Good breakdown, Marothisu. And I agree that our peak employment flies in the face of the other data.

But the fact that we are decreasing the most in the nation is still concerning. I do know that we have to find our way out of this budget/pension hump before we regain any semblance of regional confidence again. People are fed up, and it's not just the Tea Party freaks any more

Personally to me it's both concerning and not. I have looked into numbers very deeply for 2010 to 2015 by census tract all over the entire city for a lot of different measures. What I see going on is a big economic shift not that much different than what cities like NYC and SF had gone through over a decade ago. Maybe on a smaller level, but not so different in makeup. However those cities had less people leaving the city than the ones coming in than Chicago. I think the problems on parts of the south and west sides are bigger which is why we see it more flat city-wide just looking at a very simple summary number (total population and its change).

There are numerous areas of the city which lost population between 2000 and 2010, but reversed it and have gained since 2010. The main areas losing population are actually just a handful of them right now - ones like Englewood and Auburn Gresham. Can you blame people there though who want to move? I can't.

There's a lot of reasons why people could leave a city. I actually moved to NYC (after traveling there every week for over 2 years) at the end of December. I didn't move out of Chicago for anything other than an opportunity which presented itself. I love Chicago and have every intention of moving back in the next few years. However, the grass is always greener on the other side in peoples' minds and they don't fully realize it until they have to live there. Just as a bit of information though - my income tax went from 3.75% in Chicago to basically 10% or maybe a little more in NYC. My rent went from just under $1800/mo in Chicago in a high end high rise downtown to $2800/mo (considered cheap for the area) for a non doorman/non gym building in Upper West Side in Manhattan that's about 2/3 the size of what I had in Chicago. Oh yeah and cereal at the closest grocery store costs about $2 per box more than the "expensive" grocery store I went to in Chicago. You can't get a 1 bedroom condo around me for under $700K or $750K and the higher end ones are over $1M. I'll gladly take Chicago taxes over what I'm paying for now. People will always compare things between cities, but there's a lot of things that people forget to factor in and then when they move they realize they messed their comparisons up.

Anyway it's very interesting, but due to the labor market statistics, income levels increasing, education levels increasing the most of any of the top 10 largest US cities (maybe San Jose is more, I forget), etc - it's not really very concerning overall. Again what will help is that $100M neighborhood fund that Kurt Summers convinced Rahm to do. If that's successful, then I think you'd see areas like Englewood start to reverse its decline a bit.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Employment
* June 2006, Chicago city: 1,233,423
* June 2015, Chicago city: 1,288,942
* June 2016, Chicago city: 1,315,185
Difference (2015 to 2016): +26,243 (+2.04%)

Excellent news and aligns with what I had run.
Earlier today, for an argument on another forum, I had compiled ACS city housing cost and contract rents 2005-2015 corrected for 2015 dollars. To be sure I backed myself up, I did the same thing for median household income.

I had fully expected income to be slightly lower. I found it was up in 2015 by a couple of grand over '05 in '15 dollars.
It tumbled down til 2010 and clicked up regularly ever since.

[Mikemak27]

Louisvanderwright is spot on in his assessment. The schools in Chicago that are rated and test poorly have almost no parental involvement. The parents don't care about education so neither do their children. I worked as a part time janitor in college and became friends with many of the teachers. On parent teacher night and parent teacher conferences, all of their best students parents showed up. The parents of kids with academic challenges or behavior issues were nowhere to be found. We could spend 30k per student at these schools and the test scores would still be terrible.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Excellent news and aligns with what I had run.
Earlier today, for an argument on another forum, I had compiled ACS city housing cost and contract rents 2005-2015 corrected for 2015 dollars. To be sure I backed myself up, I did the same thing for median household income.

I had fully expected income to be slightly lower. I found it was up in 2015 by a couple of grand over '05 in '15 dollars.
It tumbled down til 2010 and clicked up regularly ever since.

Yep. Most people who haven't looked into the numbers or aren't into this don't understand. Even areas on the south lakefront from like South Loop to Hyde Park are steadily increasing with regards to economic and social indicators, as well as the SW side.

They think because the city is overall losing population that everything must be down. In reality, it's not true, it's only true for part of the city which still needs to be fixed, don't get me wrong.

If you look at the numbers for ACS city wide as you saw, the actual social and economic numbers are up. For example, the percentage of people 25+ with Bachelor's degree or higher is now about the same as NYC and has increased faster than NYC since 2010. If you look at it since 1990 or 2000, it's increased far more than cities like Houston, Dallas, NYC, Los Angeles, etc. It increased at double the rate of Los Angeles and Houston and about 7X higher than Dallas (worst major city in regard to this indicator by far, for the record).

I try and stay away from most internet comments on matters like this as most people truly do not understand what it takes to assess the health of a city. Losing people sucks, but it doesn't automatically mean your city is in economic decline.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yep. Most people who haven't looked into the numbers or aren't into this don't understand. Even areas on the south lakefront from like South Loop to Hyde Park are steadily increasing with regards to economic and social indicators, as well as the SW side.

They think because the city is overall losing population that everything must be down. In reality, it's not true, it's only true for part of the city which still needs to be fixed, don't get me wrong.

If you look at the numbers for ACS city wide as you saw, the actual social and economic numbers are up. For example, the percentage of people 25+ with Bachelor's degree or higher is now about the same as NYC and has increased faster than NYC since 2010. If you look at it since 1990 or 2000, it's increased far more than cities like Houston, Dallas, NYC, Los Angeles, etc. It increased at double the rate of Los Angeles and Houston and about 7X higher than Dallas (worst major city in regard to this indicator by far, for the record).

I try and stay away from most internet comments on matters like this as most people truly do not understand what it takes to assess the health of a city. Losing people sucks, but it doesn't automatically mean your city is in economic decline.

This kind of in depth analysis should be put out there. I recommend you talk with Greg Hinz at Crains

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

This kind of in depth analysis should be put out there. I recommend you talk with Greg Hinz at Crains

Hah, let's just say some of my analysis has been included in a few of his articles - I stay anonymous though. There's a lot of analysis though and you need multiple articles to cover it all usually.