CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

You may give him the benefit of the doubt, but TUP has been claiming this reverse-racism crap for years. Just ignore it, its usually irrelevant anyway. The anti-gentrication argument is indeed about access to resources for the existing residents, so you are correct on that point.

If your intention is to ignore my carefully thought out responses then why even bait me with questions?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

Its fine. It is easy to have misperceptions about the Southside because it is so ridiculously segregated. That's one of the main reasons why after law school I moved away... then came back but moved to the Northside, Downtown, Naperville, etc. Everywhere but the Southside. Until ultimately deciding to move back south and purchase a home in Hyde Park. Needless to say, the lack of diversity on the Southside is a major detraction but it also leads to misperceptions like the one TUP showed. But one thing I have observed about TUP though - his heart is in the right place. In other words, I have no doubt at all that his misperception came from a good place.

Thanks, but there has to be at least a little ring of truth in what I'm saying. I do sense that there is a desire to keep certain "black" areas "black", just like in Latino areas they are fighting to keep these areas "Latino". I have a hard time believing that all of this is just my being a mean reverse-racism complainant.

You haven't seen black people complain about whites moving into their neighborhood because, well, there really isn't any significant example of that happening--anywhere in Chicago. You hear a lot more about Hispanics fighting displacement because places like Pilsen, Humboldt Park, Logan Square, Avondale are at the cutting edge right now of the gentrification war. And the discussions there are FULL of racial undertones. That, to me, only suggests that some degree of racism is seething underneath all of the controversy.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Thanks, but there has to be at least a little ring of truth in what I'm saying. I do sense that there is a desire to keep certain "black" areas "black", just like in Latino areas they are fighting to keep these areas "Latino". I have a hard time believing that all of this is just my being a mean reverse-racism complainant.

You haven't seen black people complain about whites moving into their neighborhood because, well, there really isn't any significant example of that happening--anywhere in Chicago. You hear a lot more about Hispanics fighting displacement because places like Pilsen, Humboldt Park, Logan Square, Avondale are at the cutting edge right now of the gentrification war. And the discussions there are FULL of racial undertones. That, to me, only suggests that some degree of racism is seething underneath all of the controversy.

I have little doubt that there may be cases of that. In fact, because we are talking about human beings, I am sure there is some of that. But we have to look at the norm, not the exception. I believe those who are racially motivated are truly the exception, not the rule. Most blacks just want economic empowerment and fairness. In short, they want to be able to put food on the table. They could care less what color the next man is as long as they get a piece of the economic pie.

I have not studied this but my best guess is it may stem from every day black life where blacks come in all shades, colors, and often have white relatives or white ancestors. The 60's (and before) was pretty much a time period of direct persecution. Naturally there was resentment then as blacks were fighting for many freedoms. But from the 70's/80's forward (my generation) I never saw or experienced what you speak of.

In fact, I saw the opposite. I saw whites occasionally move in and get accepted right away - Ms.Shankey comes to mind (white lady who moved in on my block) - nothing but acceptance for her. She was horrible with lawn maintenance, had a generally sour attitude but she was otherwise accepted. We realized she was older so the neighborhood went the extra mile to look out for her. And I saw whites (salesmen, repairmen, etc) walking the streets and people would nod and say hello at them. Never a negative word.

I think too often we conflate time periods and specific issues which raise racial strife. I also think we tend to lump minority groups together while each has their own experience and their own motivation. Hispanics, for instance, may be focused more on heritage, while blacks who are being redlined against and are suffering economic disinvestment may be focused more on money/economics.

But fights and arguments over whites moving into a black neighborhood? Never heard of it. Never saw it. Think about it TUP... when have you ever heard of a white person moving into a black neighborhood and being harassed to the point that they had to move out? I don't doubt that it has happened (although I have never heard of it), but I am also sure that it is rare. Again, the exception, not the rule.

[Vlajos]

Now this is awesome!

"West Loop office landlords have salivated over McDonald's moving its headquarters to the neighborhood, ready to pounce on companies that do business with the company and might be interested in following them there. Now some are starting to reap the benefits.

Seeking proximity to McDonald's executives, vendors and suppliers are starting to set up shop near the fast-food chain's new building at 110 N. Carpenter St. in the Fulton Market District. McDonald's will move there in the weeks ahead from its longtime Oak Brook home.

Some are moving from former homes in the western suburbs or elsewhere in the city, while others are testing the West Loop waters with satellite offices while they scout out a long-term place nearby.

It's an ancillary benefit of the Golden Arches' arrival in the city and a movement that could help fill swaths of new office space popping up in the West Loop, which thanks in part to McDonald's is evolving into a trendy area to work."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...d-on-west-loop

[left of center]

^ Once McDonald's moves in, we are going to see a surge in development in the West Loop... on top of the madness that's happening right now.

And here I thought the West Loop was on fire in the mid 00's when I was attending UIC.

[the urban politician]

^ Yep, this news is music to my ears.

I'm actually kind of happy that the vendors are going to be kind of spread out instead of in a single "vendors village" tower.

As others have stated, the back to the city movement--both residential and commercial--is particularly strong in Chicago, perhaps the strongest in the nation. Which explains why our apartment market still goes strong while this sector in other cities appears to be letting up.

[Vlajos]

^ yep, two years in a row with record breaking apartment absorption and reports of very strong leasing in early 2018. Exciting times!

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

^ yep, two years in a row with record breaking apartment absorption and reports of very strong leasing in early 2018. Exciting times!

Don't think it'll happen, but I'd love nothing more for Chicago to get back to 2.8m for 2020 Census. Would really put a lid on all the negativity. If we can get back to 2.8m in 2020, I think 3m by 2030 is actually doable.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Don't think it'll happen, but I'd love nothing more for Chicago to get back to 2.8m for 2020 Census. Would really put a lid on all the negativity. If we can get back to 2.8m in 2020, I think 3m by 2030 is actually doable.

Meh, as long as we focus on that we buy into the retarded narrative that if Chicago’s population isn’t rising, then “clearly the whole city is dying and full of gangs and shootings and there is no hope”

Marothisu’s painstaking efforts have revealed that Chicago is simply reprogramming itself (perhaps faster than any other) into a wealthier city, which naturally has fewer people, and a shrinking blue collar/Industrial workforce, hence the exodus of African Americans.

Chicago’s is the exact opposite story as third world cities which are booming in population while filling up with poor migrants. Chicago is slowly shrinking while getting richer. What’s needed is for pathways for wealth inflows to open up to the South side. That happens when political barriers get out of the way (ie stop trying to hold every development hostage by your “Community Benefits Agreement” crap) and when safety is no longer perceived to be an issue. The potential is vast.

[marothisu]

^ Yep, to be honest - it might not be so different (but maybe at a smaller scale) than what happened years ago in NYC or maybe San Francisco. More and more of that blue collar/industrial past is stripped away and white collar takes over. I'm not so sure that's happening in places like Dallas. My research shows that while Dallas is gaining a lot of people, the types of people it's gaining are not the same as what Chicago is. On average, the people moving to Dallas appear to be less educated than what Chicago is getting. And it might make sense considering some of the people who have moved and are moving from the south side are ending up in places like Dallas.

I think that most people don't really understand cities at the base of them - they think that population is the only health statistic that matters but in reality there's a lot of other things at play. They also think that if your population is stagnant that literally nobody is moving there which is complete non sense. In a big city that is especially an important economic center, there's always people coming and going no matter what the net change is.

In Chicago's case, it requires digging deeper than I think most people are not willing to do. With journalism hitting a new high of being lazy in the last handful of years, it's no wonder. Also, negative news sells when that's all there appears to be which is the case here.

A lot of people in Chicago even don't know what's happening in their back yard because they now listen too much to the media without experiencing first hand various things. Even the rhetoric about how Chicago lost 200K people between 2000 and 2010 is wrong. It lost 200K people, at least estimated, between 2000 and 2004 as I've shown (which is crazy). It's been stagnant in population since 2005 - not 2010 which most people think only because they don't know about the Census's estimates from 2005 to 2009.

The city gained more 6+ figure earning households than anywhere except for LA and NYC. That may seem obvious since it's the 3rd largest city, but when your population barely went up yet you're out gaining cities in this income category that out gained you by 100K - 200K total people it shows there's a TON that the lazy journalists of the world are frankly too dumb/lazy to find out and look into because they've also bought into this 100% negative narrative.

I think places like the south side and west side are imperative if the city wants to stop its negative press and turn it more positive. Areas like downtown, Wicker Park, Logan Square, north side and parts of south side are doing well - the ones around Englewood - not at all. Luckily the homicides are down compared to the last few years (down around 26% for the first two months of the year) but still need more work to do.

[jpIllInoIs]

ESRI Mapping income

Chicago is 1st city --scroll down

[left of center]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Meh, as long as we focus on that we buy into the retarded narrative that if Chicago’s population isn’t rising, then “clearly the whole city is dying and full of gangs and shootings and there is no hope”

Marothisu’s painstaking efforts have revealed that Chicago is simply reprogramming itself (perhaps faster than any other) into a wealthier city, which naturally has fewer people, and a shrinking blue collar/Industrial workforce, hence the exodus of African Americans.

Chicago’s is the exact opposite story as third world cities which are booming in population while filling up with poor migrants. Chicago is slowly shrinking while getting richer. What’s needed is for pathways for wealth inflows to open up to the South side. That happens when political barriers get out of the way (ie stop trying to hold every development hostage by your “Community Benefits Agreement” crap) and when safety is no longer perceived to be an issue. The potential is vast.

What's happening to Chicago is all fine and good, but being America's 3rd largest city still brings a level of prestige and recognition that the city benefits from. New York is constantly becoming an ever richer city, yet it continues to grow in population and currently is literally the most populous it has ever been in its history. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and Chicago would benefit greatly from a growing population overall, as well as the continued wealth pouring into the central area.

I'm really hoping that the bleeding out of the south side and west side neighborhoods has reached a bottom this coming census, and the city population stabilizes and begins to show steady gains over the next decade's census.

[Justin_Chicago]

Interior Define gets another $15 million

Interior Define, an omnichannel customizable furniture maker, has raised another $15 million as it attempts to become what founder Rob Royer describes as "the first online-built, iconic furniture brand in the U.S."

The Series B round was led by Chicago's Pritzker Group Venture Capital and Fifth Wall Ventures, a Los Angeles-based firm focused on real estate and retail technology. The money will be invested in physical stores (called "guide shops"), technology and growing headcount. The infusion brings Interior Define's total investment capital to $25 million.

Article: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...her-15-million

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by left of center

What's happening to Chicago is all fine and good, but being America's 3rd largest city still brings a level of prestige and recognition that the city benefits from. New York is constantly becoming an ever richer city, yet it continues to grow in population and currently is literally the most populous it has ever been in its history. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and Chicago would benefit greatly from a growing population overall, as well as the continued wealth pouring into the central area.

I'm really hoping that the bleeding out of the south side and west side neighborhoods has reached a bottom this coming census, and the city population stabilizes and begins to show steady gains over the next decade's census.

San Francisco proves that you can not even crack the top 10 in size and still be a globally important city.

But yes, I agree that population gains wouldn’t hurt.

Chicago will always feel broken as long as much of the south side is in such bad shape.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ Yep, to be honest - it might not be so different (but maybe at a smaller scale) than what happened years ago in NYC or maybe San Francisco. More and more of that blue collar/industrial past is stripped away and white collar takes over. I'm not so sure that's happening in places like Dallas. My research shows that while Dallas is gaining a lot of people, the types of people it's gaining are not the same as what Chicago is. On average, the people moving to Dallas appear to be less educated than what Chicago is getting. And it might make sense considering some of the people who have moved and are moving from the south side are ending up in places like Dallas.

I think that most people don't really understand cities at the base of them - they think that population is the only health statistic that matters but in reality there's a lot of other things at play. They also think that if your population is stagnant that literally nobody is moving there which is complete non sense. In a big city that is especially an important economic center, there's always people coming and going no matter what the net change is.

In Chicago's case, it requires digging deeper than I think most people are not willing to do. With journalism hitting a new high of being lazy in the last handful of years, it's no wonder. Also, negative news sells when that's all there appears to be which is the case here.

A lot of people in Chicago even don't know what's happening in their back yard because they now listen too much to the media without experiencing first hand various things. Even the rhetoric about how Chicago lost 200K people between 2000 and 2010 is wrong. It lost 200K people, at least estimated, between 2000 and 2004 as I've shown (which is crazy). It's been stagnant in population since 2005 - not 2010 which most people think only because they don't know about the Census's estimates from 2005 to 2009.

The city gained more 6+ figure earning households than anywhere except for LA and NYC. That may seem obvious since it's the 3rd largest city, but when your population barely went up yet you're out gaining cities in this income category that out gained you by 100K - 200K total people it shows there's a TON that the lazy journalists of the world are frankly too dumb/lazy to find out and look into because they've also bought into this 100% negative narrative.

I think places like the south side and west side are imperative if the city wants to stop its negative press and turn it more positive. Areas like downtown, Wicker Park, Logan Square, north side and parts of south side are doing well - the ones around Englewood - not at all. Luckily the homicides are down compared to the last few years (down around 26% for the first two months of the year) but still need more work to do.

You took the words from my mouth.

I don't think the city/region needs to post a population increase to prove that it's a great place. It would definitely help though .

Despite the narrative, Chicago's economy is still light-years ahead of most that would be considered "booming". I do think that Chicago is experiencing a lot of what New York went through in the 80s and early 90s. How it plays out for us is TBD.

Based on current trends, I think Chicago will quietly continue to add to its educated, high income population while the hollowing out of high-crime, low income neighborhoods continues. We've seen conflicting reports on neighborhoods like Austin. They're shown to have grown one year and shrank the next. At some point it'll stabilize. My assumption is sooner than later. At that point, we'll start seeing modest gains (1-3%). Based on data, trends, and personal theories, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect the area to be recognized as a top performer in the coming years. People were writing NYC's obituary for basically the second half of the 20th century and look at the city now...

To be fair, I don't think Chicago has anywhere near the problems NYC did in the 70s/80s. I think Obama's time in the oval office made Chicago a target of the right and that narrative will take years to shake. I do think the tune on southern metros is changing as more and more people become aware of the types of jobs that are offered in these areas. So many people are under the assumption that they can show up in Dallas, have a job offer with $75k/yr on the table and a 5 bedroom, 5 bathroom, 6,000 square foot McMansion for $200,000 ready to welcome them. The world doesn't work like that, and that has become clearer to more and more families.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

We've seen conflicting reports on neighborhoods like Austin. They're shown to have grown one year and shrank the next. At some point it'll stabilize. My assumption is sooner than later. At that point, we'll start seeing modest gains (1-3%). Based on data, trends, and personal theories, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect the area to be recognized as a top performer in the coming years. People were writing NYC's obituary for basically the second half of the 20th century and look at the city now...

Austin is accounting for almost 15% of all the shootings and murders in Chicago, yet I haven't seen a push for investment like Englewood (City Colleges moving workers, TIF money for 63rd St, brand new school, Fleet and Facilities management HQ) or Garfield Park (new police training facility, TIF money for food incubator).

What assets does Austin already have that the city could capitalize on (just train stops)?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Austin is accounting for almost 15% of all the shootings and murders in Chicago, yet I haven't seen a push for investment like Englewood (City Colleges moving workers, TIF money for 63rd St, brand new school, Fleet and Facilities management HQ) or Garfield Park (new police training facility, TIF money for food incubator).

What assets does Austin already have that the city could capitalize on (just train stops)?

The communities surrounding Austin are more stable than the areas around Englewood IMO.

[Baronvonellis]

Well Austin is a food dessert. There should be city TIF money to build a full service grocery store at least! It's crazy that' it's only a mile away from Frank Lloyd Wrights home, but it may as well be in another country. I would hope that Oak Park would spill over into Austin, but I suppose that's not going to happen anytime soon.
There's only 1 small park in Austin, Lafollette Park. More parkland could help the quality of life.

Ultimately, we need more police officers and to bring crime down in these area's though.

[the urban politician]

Rumors of massive layoffs at Motorola’s Chicago office

Ouch!

https://9to5google.com/2018/03/08/ru...ayoffs-moto-z/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

There's only 1 small park in Austin, Lafollette Park.

austin is also home to columbus park, which at 140 acres, is one of the larger parks around town.