CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

^In fact, it's hard to conceive of any American city where development is less constrained.

[Randomguy34]

^Houston?

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^In fact, it's hard to conceive of any American city where development is less constrained.

Thank you. oops, I need to edit this... I thought he was saying just this opposite... our aldermanic privilege combined with our downzoned zoning makes this actually the MOST constrained city... check out the Yimby thread, it does a good job of showing the kind of development that happens every day in NYC...

why else is our population still dropping and NYC is about to meet 2020 population growth projections this year...

[bcp]

the good thing about red-tape is a predictable process that can be managed...aldermanic privelage seems to be a shifting target sometimes. that's the really bad kind of red-tape.

[Randomguy34]

A bunch of us tomorrow should barge into City Hall, march towards Rahm's desk, and tell him, "Hey, you said you will try to do a better job with Chicago, right? Why not fix the damn zoning laws then?"

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

our aldermanic privilege combined with our downzoned zoning makes this actually the MOST constrained city

These sorts of complaints remind me of "Christians" complaining on Fox News about how the terrible oppression they suffer in America. Chicago has incredibly generous FAR for the entire Central Area, no requirement that zoning comply with any sort of adopted plan (alone among states, BTW), and a wide open invitation to developers to not only ask for increased density, but to ask for TIF money to build it. Every day of every year, except possibly in two North Side wards.

why else is our population still dropping and NYC is about to meet 2020 population growth projections this year...

I'm thinking it's because of a mature postindustrial economy that's experiencing neither basic growth nor unusual inflows of foreign capital seeking safe harbor.

It's sure as hell not for lack of vacant dwelling units, or vacant land to build more on.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Thank you. oops, I need to edit this... I thought he was saying just this opposite... our aldermanic privilege combined with our downzoned zoning makes this actually the MOST constrained city... check out the Yimby thread, it does a good job of showing the kind of development that happens every day in NYC...

why else is our population still dropping and NYC is about to meet 2020 population growth projections this year...

Manhattan is still way under its historical highs (down from 2.3 million to 1.6).

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...ation-history/

Any growth in NY is purely neighborhood driven. Zoning in NYC does seem to permit more density in the "trasitable" neighborhoods and developers take advantage of that.

It does seem that revising zoning to permit a little more building (5 to 6 stories) would spur development and cut down on the number of PDS.

If you want to talk population growth, though, that is much more of a regional discussion

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

These sorts of complaints remind me of "Christians" complaining on Fox News about how the terrible oppression they suffer in America. Chicago has incredibly generous FAR for the entire Central Area, no requirement that zoning comply with any sort of adopted plan (alone among states, BTW), and a wide open invitation to developers to not only ask for increased density, but to ask for TIF money to build it. Every day of every year, except possibly in two North Side wards.



I'm thinking it's because of a mature postindustrial economy that's experiencing neither basic growth nor unusual inflows of foreign capital seeking safe harbor.

It's sure as hell not for lack of vacant dwelling units, or vacant land to build more on.

it's the neighborhoods, not the core, and the lack of an ability to construct the necessary density to keep them alive, i.e. Lincoln Park as prime example... one of the possible 2 wards you are referring to, except it is more than only 2, and the 2 you are referring to have some of the best transportation options as well and they are where people want to live, but can't find affordable options

XIII: of course NY is down from its' historical highs, almost all of the older cities are... my point is, we are still losing population, particularly in the most strategically located neighborhoods and NY is adding...

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Thank you. oops, I need to edit this... I thought he was saying just this opposite... our aldermanic privilege combined with our downzoned zoning makes this actually the MOST constrained city... check out the Yimby thread, it does a good job of showing the kind of development that happens every day in NYC...

why else is our population still dropping and NYC is about to meet 2020 population growth projections this year...

that is a matter of money.
enormous amounts of it.
watch all that red tape burn whens its trying to hold back several billion dollars.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

A bunch of us tomorrow should barge into City Hall, march towards Rahm's desk, and tell him, "Hey, you said you will try to do a better job with Chicago, right? Why not fix the damn zoning laws then?"

hell he had been in the red line roosevelt stop several time gladhanding, shoulda pulled out the phone and asked him.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Considering I'm in NYC meeting with business partners from London right now, I'd say you are onto something.

The gentrification is coming, my partner just said to me today "I'm starting to see what you say about Chicago being a better opportunity than NYC, NYC seems somewhat played out."

This is why Brooklyn is the new Manhattan to many people. Too played out for some people and it's something new/cheaper on average. There are many people who don't want to go to Brooklyn though including people who live in Manhattan. I have met many people who live here who just don't go outside of Manhattan almost ever (even though there's many cool parts of Brooklyn/Queens).

It would be interesting though to see how much foreign investment in the form of either big investment by companies or wealthy foreign individuals buying property there is in areas like Brooklyn.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Considering I'm in NYC meeting with business partners from London right now, I'd say you are onto something.

The gentrification is coming, my partner just said to me today "I'm starting to see what you say about Chicago being a better opportunity than NYC, NYC seems somewhat played out."

Just to concur, there is a definite broadening of institutional and foreign real estate capital from historically a pretty sharp focus on your NYs, Boston, DC, SF, etc to cities - first and foremost among them probably Chicago - where there is a measurably higher yield available......of course it's a trade-off, as Chicago also offers, and will continue to offer, less rent growth and (once this yield adjustment here plays out) capital appreciation potential than those cities.............(think supply constraints here as a first principle)........these foreign guys and others new to the market will learn this lesson - but hopefully not for at least a cycle!

[SamInTheLoop]

Really interesting discussion here as to (one way of reading it) why Chicago couldn't continue its population growth of the '90s into the '00s thru today, while other big cities were able to.............

Tricky one. I honestly think it's a combination of 1) Chicago's population continuing to crater in a number of neighborhoods, primarily on the South and West sides (all those places folks who live downtown, or maybe in Wicker Park and work in River North, etc - for the most part don't even know exist....that I referenced above), while the other major cities don't have a similar phenomenon (is this accurate?), this is another way of saying there's no - or negative demand - for additional housing in huge swaths of the city which could fit much, much, much more under current zoning, and 2) in the minority of the city geographically (several north and to lesser extent northwest side nabes) where there is a lot of demand, supply actually is constrained due to wildly inappropriate downzonings and Chicago's horrific and odd aldermanic prerogative tradition. The only place where a lot of demand and pretty unconstrained supply actually match-up is in the core - but the core is only so big - it's a very small percent of Chicago's 230 odd sq miles and 2.7 mil pop. - you can only mitigate so much of the population loss and stagnation in Chicago's neighborhoods at large with growth in the core........

[marothisu]

^ As discussed before, there has been a decent amount of demand in a few other areas. I think also that NIMBYs in some areas have to do with it. Think about what's happening in Logan Square with some of the new proposals. NIMBYs are saying "Oh, we don't want any of this" Enough of this happens and it's preventing larger growth from happening even though there's demand.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Yes, and yes.

As for your first point (demand in 'other' areas) - this is covered in my "several north and to lesser extent northwest side nabes".....

As for your second point (NIMBYs) - this is covered in my aldermanic prerogative point, as it is aldermanic prerogative in large measure which gives NIMBYs their outsized influence on zoning-related decision-making in Chicago neighborhoods.....

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Really interesting discussion here as to (one way of reading it) why Chicago couldn't continue its population growth of the '90s into the '00s thru today, while other big cities were able to.............

Tricky one. I honestly think it's a combination of 1) Chicago's population continuing to crater in a number of neighborhoods, primarily on the South and West sides (all those places folks who live downtown, or maybe in Wicker Park and work in River North, etc - for the most part don't even know exist....that I referenced above), while the other major cities don't have a similar phenomenon (is this accurate?), this is another way of saying there's no - or negative demand - for additional housing in huge swaths of the city which could fit much, much, much more under current zoning

i mean this is obviously the biggest factor. when you look at how much swaths of the south and west side have de-populated, the growth we're having in trendy areas is barely keeping the overall numbers flat (and really theyre not, we're still losing people). the black belt has lost 3/4 of its population. theres only so mamy hipsters to go around, and a lot of young people from this generation prefer to be in slightly smaller cities with active outdoor lifestyles (i.e. denver, austin, SF, portland, seattle, etc). and NY will always be the behemoth drawing people looking for a massive urban experience.

honestly, the city has a real image problem, and when all of the national news is either on crime or financial crisis, it dosent paint a reassuring picture.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i mean this is obviously the biggest factor. when you look at how much swaths of the south and west side have de-populated, the growth we're having in trendy areas is barely keeping the overall numbers flat (and really theyre not, we're still losing people). the black belt has lost 3/4 of its population. theres only so mamy hipsters to go around, and a lot of young people from this generation prefer to be in slightly smaller cities with active outdoor lifestyles (i.e. denver, austin, SF, seattle, etc). and NY will always be the behemoth drawing people looking for a massive urban experience.

This is false. The last 3 ACS estimate that Chicago is growing. Slowly, but growing in population. The latest 2013 estimate is that there's almost 25,000 more people versus 2010 Census. Whether or not that's 100% accurate, that's a completely different story for every single city. However, this is the best estimate anybody has at this time from the Census and it shows that what you say is actually false.

[rlw777]

Chicago has lost population pretty consistently since the 80's. I think this is because for quite some time now the country has been transitioning from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge economy. Obviously the negative effects of that transition are most strongly felt in the rust belt. So blue collar jobs dry up and are replaced by white collar jobs only it's not exactly a 1 to 1 replacement. Because knowledge economy companies don't need an army of workers. Chicago has done much better than other rust belt cities because of the diversity of it's economy but it makes sense that the city / the region that works has been lagging.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

This is false. The last 3 ACS estimate that Chicago is growing. Slowly, but growing in population. The latest 2013 estimate is that there's almost 25,000 more people versus 2010 Census. Whether or not that's 100% accurate, that's a completely different story for every single city. However, this is the best estimate anybody has at this time from the Census and it shows that what you say is actually false.

havent we agreed these estimates are mostly worthless? the same estimates showed growth through the 00's until the census showed "oh, we actually lost 200k". i put no stock in anything outside of a hard count, and the most recent data we have to go on is what im referring to.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

havent we agreed these estimates are mostly worthless? the same estimates showed growth through the 00's until the census showed "oh, we actually lost 200k". i put no stock in anything outside of a hard count, and the most recent data we have to go on is what im referring to.

It's the best thing anybody has. Sometimes they're pretty accurate and other times they aren't. Unless there's better data that comes out, it's the official estimate of the Federal Government and all anybody has to work off of. Even the census hard count is fallible, unfortunately. Even though the government threatens legal action, there's many people who, on purpose, do not fill it out.