Why is Chicago so affordable?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

I

Here is a very credible source that proves what I am saying

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/15/eco...peed=undefined

.

I don't think I've ever heard Forbes and Credible in the same sentence before.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I don't think I've ever heard Forbes and Credible in the same sentence before.

I have posted several links that all share the same numbers and rankings, are you trying to say they are all wrong or fake ? Also, say what you want about Forbes, but it is a known site.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

I have posted several links that all share the same numbers and rankings, are you trying to say they are all wrong or fake ? Also, say what you want about Forbes, but it is a known site.

Yes, they are all wrong. They are for profit websites, looking for a story. Chicago does not have a larger economy than Los Angeles, though those links would say otherwise. Boston does not have a larger economy than Washington, DC though those links would say otherwise.

What is the correlation between "known" and "credible"?

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Yes, they are all wrong. They are for profit websites, looking for a story. Chicago does not have a larger economy than Los Angeles, though those links would say otherwise. Boston does not have a larger economy than Washington, DC though those links would say otherwise.

What is the correlation between "known" and "credible"?

If you would have read what I posted you would see that it shows LA having a larger economy. Chicago ranks higher as an economic center because of it having more of a role globally with the Chicago board of trade, and mercantile exchange. Next time read before you talk.....

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by WI_1982

There is no "inventory shortage". The opposite is true. Chicago has a huge glut of apartments.

You can rent apartments in prime Lakeview for around $1000. That's cheap by big city standards. Hell, you can rent in the Hancock tower for not much more. There's too much inventory.

^ You just made my point for me.

I never said Chicago had a shortage of apartments. I said this:

If you look at the inventory of rental properties throughout Chicago's neighborhoods that aren't quite as gentrified as Lakeview (bad example on your part, since Lakeview has been established for quite a while) you will find many buildings which house tenants who have been there for years, but have been paying below market value. This is because the landlords may not be interested or even capable of making the capital improvements to their units in order to attract the higher caliber tenant. I have seen many, many examples of this.

^ This is supported by this post by Chicago103 (note the part I bolded):

Yes, and I should know because In 2006-2007 I rented a condo on the 91st floor (facing straight east at Lake Michigan) of the John Hancock Center for $1250 a month. It was about 750 square feet and it was a studio/convertible, it had 14 foot ceilings, nearly twice as high as normal floors in the buildings and thus it had an open sleeping loft of about 100 square feet (included in the 750 sq feet) that more or less could be considered like a bedroom. The drawback was that it was not updated from 1970, it had the original kitchen and whitewashed walls and the bathroom was just ordinary.

It is my genuine belief that Chicago's rental market is WAY underserved. I know leasing agents who tell me that "good renters" (ie white or Asian people for the most part who are either college students or professionals) are having a hard time finding good apartments in many of Chicago's neighborhoods. For example, I am interested in a building in Pilsen, which is ripe for gentrification, but there is very little product there. People want washer/dryers, good appliances, etc. They can scarcely find them in Pilsen, so they are forced to look elsewhere.

There are plenty of apartments in Pilsen. But for the upwardly mobile/yuppie crowd who have certain needs, the demand is there but the supply lags.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by WI_1982

No, and no.

Again, Chicago has the fifth largest economy in the U.S., per the annual Federal BEA counts.

How can it then have the fourth largest economy in the world? Four U.S. metros have bigger economies, plus there are some bigger foreign economies (Tokyo, certainly, probably Seoul, probably London, probably Sao Paulo, and a few others).

Maybe Chicago is Top 10 in the world, at best. I still think that would be unusually generous to the size of U.S. metros, but one could make a straight-faced argument. But if Chicago isn't bigger than 5th in the U.S., it can't be much bigger than 10th in the world.

^ By the way, hi Crawford!

All the Chicago bashing in the world won't fix Detroit, you know.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician

^ By the way, hi Crawford!

All the Chicago bashing in the world won't fix Detroit, you know.

Could you weigh in on the argument me and prelude have been having ? I want to get someone more knowledgeable in this argument...

[Northsider]

I've seen numerous sources citing Chicago as top5 economy in the world. I'd really love to see some other sources that prelude and WI_1982 talk about.

[Hey_Hey]

It seems you all are actually arguing over whether economic output in terms of rankings should be calculated based on MSA or CSA. By MSA Chicago ranks third in the US. By CSA it's behind DC and the Bay Area.

I don't know what the most appropriate way of ranking economic output is, but that should be the argument, not which source is most accurate or reliable. They're likely all using very similar numbers, they're just including more or less land area.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Northsider

I've seen numerous sources citing Chicago as top5 economy in the world. I'd really love to see some other sources that prelude and WI_1982 talk about.

As I already stated, there are different ways of determining the economy of a city/region. An argument can be made for CSA or MSA or Urban Area, but based on CSA Chicago is the 5th largest in the USA, not the World. Of course Chicago much more centralized than SF or DC, but as a greater region, I have a very hard time believing 5th largest in the world.

This from the BEA, economic output by CSA:

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional...dpma_0211b.png


1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA $1.460 Trillion
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area $84,882
Kingston, NY Metro Area $4,755
New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area $40,844
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area $1,280,517
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area $22,440
Torrington, CT Micro Area
Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metro Area $26.680

2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA $881.297 Billion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area $735,743
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area $35,736
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area $109,818

3. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA $575.025 Billion
Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area
Lexington Park, MD Micro Area $144,789
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area $425,167
Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area $5,069

4. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $544.969 Billion
Napa, CA Metro Area $7,015
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area $325,927
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area $168,517
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area $9,697
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area $19,888
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metro Area $13,925

5. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $539.046 Billion
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area $532,331
Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metro Area $3,150
Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area $3,565

6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA $430.245 Billion
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area $313,690
Concord, NH Micro Area
Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area $20,988
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area $66,334
Worcester, MA Metro Area $29,233

7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $384.603 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area $384,603

8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA $377.546 Billion
Athens, TX Micro Area
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area $374,081
Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area $3,465

9. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA $366.792 Billion
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area $346,932
Reading, PA Metro Area $14,876
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area $4,984

10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL $278.805 Billion
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area $272,362
Gainesville, GA Metro Area $6,443

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by prelude91

As I already stated, there are different ways of determining the economy of a city/region. An argument can be made for CSA or MSA or Urban Area, but based on CSA Chicago is the 5th largest in the USA, not the World. Of course Chicago much more centralized than SF or DC, but as a greater region, I have a very hard time believing 5th largest in the world.

This from the BEA, economic output by CSA:

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional...dpma_0211b.png


1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA $1.460 Trillion
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area $84,882
Kingston, NY Metro Area $4,755
New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area $40,844
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area $1,280,517
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area $22,440
Torrington, CT Micro Area
Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metro Area $26.680

2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA $881.297 Billion
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area $735,743
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area $35,736
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area $109,818

3. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA $575.025 Billion
Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area
Lexington Park, MD Micro Area $144,789
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area $425,167
Winchester, VA-WV Metro Area $5,069

4. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $544.969 Billion
Napa, CA Metro Area $7,015
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area $325,927
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area $168,517
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metro Area $9,697
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metro Area $19,888
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metro Area $13,925

5. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $539.046 Billion
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area $532,331
Kankakee-Bradley, IL Metro Area $3,150
Michigan City-La Porte, IN Metro Area $3,565

6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA $430.245 Billion
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area $313,690
Concord, NH Micro Area
Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area $20,988
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area $66,334
Worcester, MA Metro Area $29,233

7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $384.603 Billion
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area $384,603

8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA $377.546 Billion
Athens, TX Micro Area
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area $374,081
Sherman-Denison, TX Metro Area $3,465

9. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA $366.792 Billion
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area $346,932
Reading, PA Metro Area $14,876
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area $4,984

10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL $278.805 Billion
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area $272,362
Gainesville, GA Metro Area $6,443

Hey-Hey solved this. I am talking about the actual Chicago area, not the CSA. When it comes to economy I care about the actual city. Chicago ranks 4th in the world for its actual city. Comparing CSA is a bit weird because Chicago's CSA isn't near as big as NY, SF, DC when it comes to CSA. Also, places like SF have big hitters outside of the city like San Jose. While Chicago is a powerhouse, yet everything outside of Chicago barely contributes.

For this type of comparison it is much better to compare the actual city. For example, say city A has $100,000, but it has an additional 6 cities in its CSA that also contribute $95,000 each. While City B has a massive $650,000, but has only 2 additional cities in its CSA, which contribute very little.

City A could be Wichita Kansas, and City B could be a massive Metropolis, but by CSA, City A comes out looking like a more powerful city.

For this reason, MSA is definitely the better comparison, and by that, I have proved my point, and Chicago comes out as the 4th most economically powerful city in the world.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

Hey-Hey solved this. I am talking about the actual Chicago area, not the CSA. When it comes to economy I care about the actual city. Chicago ranks 4th in the world for its actual city. Comparing CSA is a bit weird because Chicago's CSA isn't near as big as NY, SF, DC when it comes to CSA. Also, places like SF have big hitters outside of the city like San Jose. While Chicago is a powerhouse, yet everything outside of Chicago barely contributes.

For this type of comparison it is much better to compare the actual city. For example, say city A has $100,000, but it has an additional 6 cities in its CSA that also contribute $95,000 each. While City B has a massive $650,000, but has only 2 additional cities in its CSA, which contribute very little.

City A could be Wichita Kansas, and City B could be a massive Metropolis, but by CSA, City A comes out looking like a more powerful city.

For this reason, MSA is definitely the better comparison, and by that, I have proved my point, and Chicago comes out as the 4th most economically powerful city in the world.

Well, now im confused. You first state it should be measured by city, then by MSA? Either way, that is your opinion. You might think comparing CSA's is "weird" but it is also "weird" to compare Chicago city limits to SF, which is a whopping 49 sq miles in area or DC which is like 60sq miles. CSA's are based on commuting patterns analyzed by the government, I'll take that over "some dude on the internet".

However, I typically agree MSA tells a better picture in most instances, but for metro areas like DC and SF It doesn't tell the whole story.

Howard County Maryland (which is in Baltimore MSA) is approx 15 miles from the border of DC, that is like not counting Oak Brook Illinois in Chicago's region. there is huge Cost of living gap between Baltimore and DC, and with the presence of the Federal Gov't in Dc, many many commuters travel from Baltimore to DC, it really does opperate like one region.

All one has to do is travel to The Washington area (where I have lived for the last 3.5 years) to see how connect Bal-Wash region really is. Chicago (where I spent the first 25 years of my life) is obviously a much larger city than either DC or Balt, but the economy outside the core really falls.

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by prelude91

This from the BEA, economic output by CSA:

Thanks.

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Well, now im confused. You first state it should be measured by city, then by MSA? Either way, that is your opinion. You might think comparing CSA's is "weird" but it is also "weird" to compare Chicago city limits to SF, which is a whopping 49 sq miles in area or DC which is like 60sq miles. CSA's are based on commuting patterns analyzed by the government, I'll take that over "some dude on the internet".

However, I typically agree MSA tells a better picture in most instances, but for metro areas like DC and SF It doesn't tell the whole story.

Howard County Maryland (which is in Baltimore MSA) is approx 15 miles from the border of DC, that is like not counting Oak Brook Illinois in Chicago's region. there is huge Cost of living gap between Baltimore and DC, and with the presence of the Federal Gov't in Dc, many many commuters travel from Baltimore to DC, it really does opperate like one region.

All one has to do is travel to The Washington area (where I have lived for the last 3.5 years) to see how connect Bal-Wash region really is. Chicago (where I spent the first 25 years of my life) is obviously a much larger city than either DC or Balt, but the economy outside the core really falls.

^ I tend to think that the Wash-Balt 'lumping' is artificial, from the 3 years I lived there. I didn't feel that these two cities felt connected...at all. That's why I kind of scratch my head when I keep hearing about metro DC being so massive with such a large GDP.

Fine, I'm not going to argue with the census bureau. But Chicago metro actually feels like a single, unified metro. DC (and the Bay Area for that matter) just don't. They feel like a bunch of cities just lumped together for convenience.

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Well, now im confused. You first state it should be measured by city, then by MSA? Either way, that is your opinion. You might think comparing CSA's is "weird" but it is also "weird" to compare Chicago city limits to SF, which is a whopping 49 sq miles in area or DC which is like 60sq miles. CSA's are based on commuting patterns analyzed by the government, I'll take that over "some dude on the internet".

However, I typically agree MSA tells a better picture in most instances, but for metro areas like DC and SF It doesn't tell the whole story.

Howard County Maryland (which is in Baltimore MSA) is approx 15 miles from the border of DC, that is like not counting Oak Brook Illinois in Chicago's region. there is huge Cost of living gap between Baltimore and DC, and with the presence of the Federal Gov't in Dc, many many commuters travel from Baltimore to DC, it really does opperate like one region.

All one has to do is travel to The Washington area (where I have lived for the last 3.5 years) to see how connect Bal-Wash region really is. Chicago (where I spent the first 25 years of my life) is obviously a much larger city than either DC or Balt, but the economy outside the core really falls.

Well typically it is measured by MSA, but honestly sometimes I mix them up when I am talking. But if you measure by the typical measurement you get Chicago being the 4th most powerful city by economy in the world. When you search cities by GDP, here is what pops up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP -

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/15/eco...wercities.html

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...ties-2020.html

http://www.enotes.com/topic/List_of_cities_by_GDP

All of them list Chicago as 4

I think that they should go by the actual city or maybe MSA. The thing about CSA is that the economic/social ties of the areas aren't as strong. Nearly all of the articles or lists go by MSA, which is closer to the actual city, which is better in my opinion.

But you do realize now that I wasn't lying, and that the sources I posted were legit right ?