CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

"Plain"?

Yes, "plain". As in, not a bunch of sassy, sexy traders, investment bankers, lawyers and college students wearing their suits and hip clothes, sipping expresso, and playing 'Mafia Wars' on Facebook via their iPhones.

I'm talking about working joes who come home, watch the game, and have a cold one.

[VivaLFuego]

Uh, not so much anymore. The East Side south of the Skyway still has a decent percentage of white population, but north of the Skyway, South Chicago is almost entirely minority, with Hispanic more to the south and east and black to the north and west. This part of the development site (the north end, nearer 79th Street) is decidedly a minority area.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is there any chance that [the South Works] TIF won't be approved?

Well, I guess there could be some sort of volcanic eruption that day.

But otherwise, no chance. CDC uses the same big rubber stamp as the Plan Commission. By the time something gets on the agenda, the mayor has nodded.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

That would, in my humble estimation, break up the cliff face rather jarringly.

I'm not talking about building a one story structure and then starting on its way up, I'm talking about building a building that completely fills out the cliff and then each floor sets back from there. Also, I'm not talking like a straight angle, I'm talking like a logarithmic curve where the first set back floor is set back so far you can even see it from the street and then each subsequent set back is smaller until you have a vertical surface which would be the east wall of the tower.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Yes, "plain". As in, not a bunch of sassy, sexy traders, investment bankers, lawyers and college students wearing their suits and hip clothes, sipping expresso, and playing 'Mafia Wars' on Facebook via their iPhones.

I'm talking about working joes who come home, watch the game, and have a cold one.

I agree that its good that its medium priced housing, but I wouldn't exactly say Chicago has an epidemic of professional people living in it. Remember that the suburbs stole almost all the upper classes from the city and they are just now starting to move back in. If anything, it'd be great to see some luxury development on the south side as well to increase the economic diversity of the area.

[a chicago bearcat]

in response to nowhereman, I'll put it simply here.

While your idea is intriguing, this is not the correct site for that building to be built upon. New York might be better given their zoning history, which is a great precedent for the structure you describe.

the rest of my response is in a private message to you

[a chicago bearcat]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I agree that its good that its medium priced housing, but I wouldn't exactly say Chicago has an epidemic of professional people living in it. Remember that the suburbs stole almost all the upper classes from the city and they are just now starting to move back in. If anything, it'd be great to see some luxury development on the south side as well to increase the economic diversity of the area.

and this is something I agree with wholeheartedly. Just as long as this luxury development is interspersed with affordable housing. But yes, new developments along the green and orange lines would make my soul happy.

[lawfin]

Any one listen to NPR tonight, on 848 they spoke with a Mr. Rob Paral; he is predicting a 5% drop in Chicago population, which would put it at 2.75 million. Essentially claiming that Chicago lost more in this decade than it gained between 1990 and 2000.

Also one of our fellow forumers was interviewed in a segment re: big developments in Chicago that have stalled recently

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Program_848.aspx

[ardecila]

^^ Mr. Paral's estimates are not just predictions; they are simply based on the Census Bureau's estimates of population, which are well-documented and published. We've always known that the Census Bureau tends to undercount urban populations in their estimates; more accurate numbers only come around every 10 years during actual censuses. Many cities routinely challenge the Census Bureau's population estimates, but AFAIK, Chicago has not challenged since 1990.

It's actually interesting, because if you look at Paral's survey (PDF), the data implies that Chicago lost 5% of its population between 2000 and 2006. So if Mr. Paral is predicting a 5% drop between 2000 and 2010, that means that Chicago's population held steady in 2006-2010, which is definitely a good sign.

I didn't know that we gained population in the 90s, though. That's interesting; I always thought Chicago was on a continual downward trend that we had yet to reverse. The University of Chicago claims that the 90s gains were largely due to Hispanic immigration and the repopulation of industrial or blighted areas by the professional class, and were mitigated by the flow of blacks out of the city. So a reversion back to population loss either implies that immigration was reduced (Bush crackdowns on illegals?), or that blacks started leaving in much higher numbers than they did in the 90s (00's crime wave?)

The growth of wealthy areas on the north/northwest sides and around the Loop was going gangbusters in the 00's, so that can't be the reason for population loss, unless the smaller household sizes of the new wealthier residents combined with their displacement of the former residents was a substantial factor. Personally, I see taller buildings all over the North Side, and it seems like the greater number of units in the new, taller buildings should offset any drop in household size, for no significant change in density in neighborhoods pre- and post-gentrification.

[lawfin]

^^Yeah your right about that 2006 issue. When I originally looked at the report I noted that it was released in January 2009, and then mistakenly read the references to 2006 as 2009....inverted the 6 & 9.

Mea culpa.....still I do not recall the Census numbers estimating that steep of a drop.


There are several private sector entities that have actually forecast modest pop. growth in Chicago: including Zillow, Cyberhomes, and walkscore just to name a few

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Well, I guess there could be some sort of volcanic eruption that day.

But otherwise, no chance. CDC uses the same big rubber stamp as the Plan Commission. By the time something gets on the agenda, the mayor has nodded.

Not necessarily. Reilly, for instance, is laudably standing in the way of them essentially re-creating the Central Loop TIF now that it has expired.

[emathias]

I'm always surprised when I see the leasing vacancy rates of suburbs vs. city here. For downtown, the total vacancy rate (direct and available sublease) is a little over 16%, but according to Crains today, the suburban rate is almost 25% - that's a huge difference, and I think shows clearly that companies do still prefer to locate in the central area instead of on the perimeter.

[pip]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^^ Mr. Paral's estimates are not just predictions; they are simply based on the Census Bureau's estimates of population, which are well-documented and published. We've always known that the Census Bureau tends to undercount urban populations in their estimates; more accurate numbers only come around every 10 years during actual censuses. Many cities routinely challenge the Census Bureau's population estimates, but AFAIK, Chicago has not challenged since 1990.

It's actually interesting, because if you look at Paral's survey (PDF), the data implies that Chicago lost 5% of its population between 2000 and 2006. So if Mr. Paral is predicting a 5% drop between 2000 and 2010, that means that Chicago's population held steady in 2006-2010, which is definitely a good sign.

I didn't know that we gained population in the 90s, though. That's interesting; I always thought Chicago was on a continual downward trend that we had yet to reverse. The University of Chicago claims that the 90s gains were largely due to Hispanic immigration and the repopulation of industrial or blighted areas by the professional class, and were mitigated by the flow of blacks out of the city. So a reversion back to population loss either implies that immigration was reduced (Bush crackdowns on illegals?), or that blacks started leaving in much higher numbers than they did in the 90s (00's crime wave?)

The growth of wealthy areas on the north/northwest sides and around the Loop was going gangbusters in the 00's, so that can't be the reason for population loss, unless the smaller household sizes of the new wealthier residents combined with their displacement of the former residents was a substantial factor. Personally, I see taller buildings all over the North Side, and it seems like the greater number of units in the new, taller buildings should offset any drop in household size, for no significant change in density in neighborhoods pre- and post-gentrification.

but what worries me about this decade vs the 90's with regards to population growth is Chicago Public School's enrollment. It went up during the 90's and has gone down this decade. This decade it has gone down by about 25,000 students total. This year was the only increase of the decade and enrollment grew by 1100. Since school age children represent about 25% of the population that 25,000 student loss can be a total 100,000 person loss. If you look at the bolded part, CPS total enrollment almost follws that pattern during the dates very roughly.

I hope I'm wrong and for example Philadelphia just won a census dispute that now shows Philly growing again in population but their school enrollment has dropped faster numberwise than CPS and the city is half the size. So in conclusion who knows whats going on, only the 2010 census will be able to tell. But I would'nt put money on population growth.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by emathias

I'm always surprised when I see the leasing vacancy rates of suburbs vs. city here. For downtown, the total vacancy rate (direct and available sublease) is a little over 16%, but according to Crains today, the suburban rate is almost 25% - that's a huge difference, and I think shows clearly that companies do still prefer to locate in the central area instead of on the perimeter.

More striking than the office vacancy rates are the industrial/warehousing vacancy rates, which are much lower in the city - and for both types of spaces, the price per square foot is higher in the city. I don't think it necessarily implies that companies prefer the city to the suburbs - the vacancy rate is a function of the economics of speculative development, which I assume for various reasons is cheaper in the suburbs. I think the differential in vacancy is probably more just representative of the markets being very different and distinct: the suburbs will always have higher vacancy than the city, and the threshold for market health is different in each.

[Chicago3rd]

Wow, I know so exciting right?!? But a few months ago one of the local neighborhood rags said that this site would be left empty and they doubted Dominicks would actually build. Well they are building and it looks significantly better than the 1970's crap we had before. Can't tell if parking will be below ground or above roof. This is way cool since the old store had about 1/2 block surface parking that drove me nuts.

These went up in the last week:

From the NE Corner












NW
Corner of Lincoln Ave and Berwyn










West






Looking south on Lincoln (Foster is first intersection)



Looking north on Lincoln (from same as above)

[BWChicago]

Didn't realize they were rebuilding that store too. Man, that was a really awful Dominick's before.

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by pip

but what worries me about this decade vs the 90's with regards to population growth is Chicago Public School's enrollment. It went up during the 90's and has gone down this decade. This decade it has gone down by about 25,000 students total. This year was the only increase of the decade and enrollment grew by 1100. Since school age children represent about 25% of the population that 25,000 student loss can be a total 100,000 person loss. If you look at the bolded part, CPS total enrollment almost follws that pattern during the dates very roughly.

I hope I'm wrong and for example Philadelphia just won a census dispute that now shows Philly growing again in population but their school enrollment has dropped faster numberwise than CPS and the city is half the size. So in conclusion who knows whats going on, only the 2010 census will be able to tell. But I would'nt put money on population growth.

Don't forget the Charter Schools taking some of the CPS population, I'm sure.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ardecila

or that blacks started leaving in much higher numbers than they did in the 90s (00's crime wave?)

i don't know if more blacks are leaving now or not, but crime (particularly homicide) was much higher in the 90s than it was in this past decade. annual homicide totals during the 90s hovered between 700 - 950. by comparison, the average for this past decade has been around 450 a year. still WAY too high, but light years better than bang-bang shoot 'em up 90s.

Originally Posted by aic4ever

Don't forget the Charter Schools taking some of the CPS population, I'm sure.

yeah, i'd wouldn't be surpised if that 25,000 drop in CPS enrollment is due entirely to the growth of charter schools as frustrated parents look for options beyond CPS.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Wow, I know so exciting right?!? But a few months ago one of the local neighborhood rags said that this site would be left empty and they doubted Dominicks would actually build. Well they are building and it looks significantly better than the 1970's crap we had before. Can't tell if parking will be below ground or above roof. This is way cool since the old store had about 1/2 block surface parking that drove me nuts.

These went up in the last week:

From the NE Corner


Looking north on Lincoln (from same as above)

I don't know about the rest of you, and I am no fan of any street front parking (urban cancer blight), but that blank concrete wall is really ominous ...it doesn't seem to bode well for a well integrated store.

Are there renders?

[pip]

unfortunetly that figure included charter schools, i'll double check when I get home.