Why is Chicago so affordable?

[Urbanight]

Originally Posted by simulcra

*Shrugs* I'd like to hear alternative demographic theories, but the most compelling one I've heard has been like this.

There are plenty of demographic issues at work in Chicago and in the nation as a whole, but the one that concerns me the most is where all the top talent is going, as controlling for other factors, it seems to be the best future predictor of economic/population growth. I never meant to imply that I thought that this "general/specialist" city migration (as you put it) was the sole element for Chicago's demographic issues (sorry if it came across that way). I realize there are a lot of other issues EG school quality, job location, crime, transportation accessibility, etc. I meant more in terms of regional relocation - ie if a person leaves Dallas for Austin - what drove them? In most cases I would venture to say that the desire for a better commute, safer neighborhood, or better school was not a driving factor, as you can make those improvements without leaving an entire regional economy (ie move from Englewood to Rogers Park or from Hyde Park to Naperville). What most likely prompts a person to move into a completely different regional economy is job prospects. I glossed over the nuances of this when I was talking about my either/or explanations for changes in population in Chicago neighborhoods, but that was because explaining out even a part of this took a long paragraph, but that's my bad for misrepresenting my ideas.

Given that we were talking about Chicago's median home price/affordable cost of living, I took this as a barometer for the regional economy (hence all my discussion on specialized economies and the like), ie maybe home prices are depressed because higher wage people tend to congregate in greater proportion in more specialized regional economies.

Finally, broadly speaking, (creative class) people (who tend to be more mobile than others) do tend to leave unspecialized cities for more specialized ones as career mobilization occurs (controlling for size of the economy). That is, for a person to keep climbing the corporate ladder in finance, they may go from Houston to Chicago to New York. This is not to say that I think this is the only determining factor - Portland OR is not quite a particularly specialized or large economy but will probably surpass Seattle in terms of population in maybe 2014 or so due to an astronomical growth rate. But I would also say that there's a non-trivial rate of re-filtering of IT professionals from Portland to Seattle or San Jose, and as Portland's economy and municipal status matures, dominant industries and types of jobs will matter more for its long-run home price/cost of living changes.

I realize that it's unlikely that I'll be able to convince anyone of the wage-perspective of housing affordability/cost of living, namely because at least in the literature, there's no clear answer anyway. At the very least, I want to at least highlight an alternate viewpoint that is also considered fairly valid by the literature (even if I personally botch the explanation of it from time to time).

Alternative demographic theories? I'm pretty sure Chicago is not suffering from a brain-drain. The demographic groups leaving Chicago are mostly working class that can no longer afford the city, and newly middle class African Americans that can afford to leave troubled neighborhoods on the south side. The neighborhoods popular with young urban professionals have had the population increase.

You also mention Chicago real estate prices are depressed. I don't think they are. Depressed real estate prices means that some outside force is keeping real estate prices in Chicago from rising. But prices are rising, or were rising before the great recession. And they were rising at a rate comparable to many other parts of the nation. Real estate prices are cheaper than some other cities, but they are not depressed.

I don't think it makes much sense trying to explain Chicago's affordable real estate by looking at some current economic condition. Because real estate prices on average continue to go up. (And other than the recession that is affecting the nation, there is nothing wrong with Chicago’s economy.) Therefore, it makes more sense to look at some historic economic conditions.

So if land in Chicago was cheaper than land in NYC and Boston say in 1837, then prices would remain cheaper unless say the city's growth was limited geographically.

And what literature do you have?

[simulcra]

EDIT2 - this is yet another long post, so if you're not feeling up to reading through my dense prose, I've bolded my main points, so you can just skim and read those.

Originally Posted by Urbanight

Alternative demographic theories? I'm pretty sure Chicago is not suffering from a brain-drain. The demographic groups leaving Chicago are mostly working class that can no longer afford the city, and newly middle class African Americans that can afford to leave troubled neighborhoods on the south side. The neighborhoods popular with young urban professionals have had the population increase.

I don't mean brain-drain in the horribly crippling Detroit/Pittsburgh fashion. I mean brain-drain in a much more subtle, potentially sinister method of missed opportunities. Much like how from a year-on-year perspective, an inflation of 3% instead of 2.5% is hardly noticeable, but over many decades becomes crippling. Yes, in some neighborhoods (especially the South Loop), populations have soared. But I actually remember going through all the 2000 census neighborhood breakdowns on Chicago's city website and seeing some troubling conclusions.

Yes, some neighborhoods increased in population, but alot of them increased from 1990 to 2000 at less the rate of natural growth, ie births minus deaths, which implies a subtle population drain. Again, demographics is all a bit too complex to succinctly codify with one theory, but my observations started coming about in reaction to a concerning article I read earlier in the 00's. It basically pertained to how despite having world-class universities and resources within reach (UChicago, UIUC, Northwestern, IIT, Argonne/Fermilab, etc) Chicago had failed to gain a dramatic foothold in a lot of the new, high-growth high-wage knowledge economy (high tech and nanotech in particular) despite consistent municipal efforts to attract it. It even dilineated a hypothetical example of how a UIUC student with the latest Google would have to go to the West Coast or Boston to get money for his idea, due to an almost complete lack of venture capital/high tech knowledge infrastructure within Chicagoland. It even goes to show that even though Chicago has pretty decent biotech going on, I believe alot of it is not within Chicago city limits. I could go on about that, but for the sake of Chicago's well being, we cannot just simply see numbers from 2000 being greater than 1990 and proclaim 'aha! success! we no longer need to worry'.

I'd also just like to say that people repeat the argument that any population loss is working class neighborhoods gentrifying. I'm sure that this is true to an extent, but does anyone have any actual hard research on this or is this speculation? I'm at a loss since, no longer being a student, I no longer have the same kinds of resources available to me, but most of the hard analysis I read from both UChicago and other discussions on demographic trends seem to point out that most of it was plain ol' relatively affluent white (and troublingly, for 1990-2000, black as well) flight, though a part of it was indeed simple gentrification.

You also mention Chicago real estate prices are depressed. I don't think they are. Depressed real estate prices means that some outside force is keeping real estate prices in Chicago from rising.

Perhaps I was careless with words. Replace "depress" with "suppress". And yes, by simple supply/demand, Chicago (really any city)'s real estate prices are suppressed by outside forces (competition). If there was only one house for sale in the entire nation and it was in Chicago, I guarantee you that seller could name his own price.

[But prices are rising, or were rising before the great recession. And they were rising at a rate comparable to many other parts of the nation.

That's not good enough for me. I don't care that Chicago might have outpaced Houston or Dallas in terms of home price, because Chicago's worlds away from them in terms of economic prestige and might. I _do_ care that Chicago still has lower wage/median home price increases compared to cities like NYC, LA, or even DC and Boston, because those are the cities Chicago is competing for in terms of top talent.

I don't think it makes much sense trying to explain Chicago's affordable real estate by looking at some current economic condition.

Again, I think my careless use of "depressed" gave this impression, when I didn't mean such. Regardless of economic status, Chicago, for example, has lagged behind many West Coast cities in terms of overall rate of growth in home prices. There are many reasons for this, but I personally feel that simply dismissing other cities as having less supply or more geographical constraints cheats away discussion on what Chicago could be doing better.

And what literature do you have?

The New Chicago: A Social and Cultural Analysis (an anthology)
The New Urban Sociology (third edition) (an anthology), particularly the chapters concerning the LA school, the growth machine, and uneven development
The Culture of Cities by Zukin
The Urban Sociology Reader (an anthology)
When Work Disappears by William Julius Wilson
Cities in a World Economy by Saskia Sassen
The Big Sort by Bill Bishop
Who's Your City by Richard Florida (a simple follow up to his Creative Class)
to a certain extent Bowling Alone by Putnam, but only because it ties in well to Bill Bishop and Richard Florida

Many of these only discuss the stuff I'm talking about in a few chapters (like The New Chicago or the Culture of Cities), though Who's Your City+Big Sort+Cities in a World Economy both go pretty extensively about demographic/economic sorting in the US (and sassen's goes on about the world, as well). I'd encourage anyone who's curious to look through them, as some of them are really interesting even to a non-sociology junkie (especially Bill Bishop), plus, aside from this thread, I've been hankering for some spirited debate.

EDIT - I don't want to drift this thread off-topic, so I just want to reiterate that the main thread running through my arguments is that, quite simply, in terms of homeowners, Chicago remains a largely middle-class city, and that is the reason why things are more affordable here. Home prices and cost of living can only go up if there's enough of a wealthy population to support it, and at that basic level, I'm not sure how we can dispute that. If the median homeowner is not willing to pay 500,000USD for a median home, then that's not going to be the median home price.

[Urbanight]

Originally Posted by simulcra

EDIT - I don't want to drift this thread off-topic, so I just want to reiterate that the main thread running through my arguments is that, quite simply, in terms of homeowners, Chicago remains a largely middle-class city, and that is the reason why things are more affordable here. Home prices and cost of living can only go up if there's enough of a wealthy population to support it, and at that basic level, I'm not sure how we can dispute that. If the median homeowner is not willing to pay 500,000USD for a median home, then that's not going to be the median home price.

Oh, ok. Well I agree, income levels affect real estate prices. Supply and demand affect real estate prices. And I’m sure there are some other factors.

I see where we differ:
You believe Chicago's real estate prices are more affordable when compared to NYC, Boston, SF, Seattle, etc. because Chicago is losing in the competition for top talent in certain industries.

I believe Chicago is winning in attracting top talent in some industries, and losing in attracting top talent in other industries. I also believe the same could be said for almost any city in the U.S. So therefore the affect on real estate prices is negligible.

[AmericanDirt]

I appreciate what some of you have postulated regarding the composition of Chicago's workforce and industrial structure in comparison to other major cities, which I was not particularly aware of. I'd love to hear any feedback on my original observation, which looked particularly at urban housing from a supply/demand angle--mostly contained in the paragraph below. I know this is just one factor contributing to Chicago's affordability out of many, but any responses--both affirmations and refutations--would be welcomed:

I think, as another poster has mentioned, the absence of geographical constraints plays a huge role. It can sprawl in three directions, while cities like Boston and San Francisco rest on peninsulas. The flat topography also means fewer barriers. Its role as a major logistical hub keeps transportation costs low. And it could very well be that Chicago is one of the few Midwestern cities that have long cultivated a fashionable urban living culture (think of how the Gold Coast was still desirable even which Chicago hit its nadir around 1980). Because of this, Chicago has a much more diversified embedded urban demographic than cities with emerging downtowns like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, or Indianapolis. The urban housing stock is also more diverse, allowing supply to more accurately fit demand--so that developers know how to build at a variety of price points...and they know they'll find a buyer. I don't know how it is in other smaller Midwestern cities, but in Indianapolis, a preponderance of major downtown developments cater to the very high income clientele ($400,000 up to over a million) which suggests that urban condos are mostly an elitist thing, not yet finding a strong market with the middle class. Downtown apartment occupancy in Indy is at 99%, which may fill much of the less affluent niche, who aren't ready to commit to a mortgage in downtown Indy. These pricey condos may also be induced by a low-density mentality in Indianapolis that imposes strict height limitations in certain historic districts and mandates a level of parking that results in sunk costs to the developers, forcing them to raise the prices per unit. Simple economies of scale translate to building more units cheaper, and since Chicago already generally operates in a high-density frame of mind, it can build 60-story condos with a great deal of standardization, keeping per unit costs down. This, coupled with the lack of geographic constraints may explain why Chicago can have a skyline comparable to New York but at a fraction of the cost.

[simulcra]

Originally Posted by AmericanDirt

I think, as another poster has mentioned, the absence of geographical constraints plays a huge role. It can sprawl in three directions, while cities like Boston and San Francisco rest on peninsulas. The flat topography also means fewer barriers. Its role as a major logistical hub keeps transportation costs low. And it could very well be that Chicago is one of the few Midwestern cities that have long cultivated a fashionable urban living culture (think of how the Gold Coast was still desirable even which Chicago hit its nadir around 1980). Because of this, Chicago has a much more diversified embedded urban demographic than cities with emerging downtowns like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, or Indianapolis. The urban housing stock is also more diverse, allowing supply to more accurately fit demand--so that developers know how to build at a variety of price points...and they know they'll find a buyer. I don't know how it is in other smaller Midwestern cities, but in Indianapolis, a preponderance of major downtown developments cater to the very high income clientele ($400,000 up to over a million) which suggests that urban condos are mostly an elitist thing, not yet finding a strong market with the middle class. Downtown apartment occupancy in Indy is at 99%, which may fill much of the less affluent niche, who aren't ready to commit to a mortgage in downtown Indy. These pricey condos may also be induced by a low-density mentality in Indianapolis that imposes strict height limitations in certain historic districts and mandates a level of parking that results in sunk costs to the developers, forcing them to raise the prices per unit. Simple economies of scale translate to building more units cheaper, and since Chicago already generally operates in a high-density frame of mind, it can build 60-story condos with a great deal of standardization, keeping per unit costs down. This, coupled with the lack of geographic constraints may explain why Chicago can have a skyline comparable to New York but at a fraction of the cost.

I think while you say geographical constrains, what you're actually talking alot about is cultural norms. To that end, you raise some interesting points. For example, NYC has had a long historical culture of tiny tenements and a deep urban culture (when Chicago was competing for the world's fair, Brooklyn alone was bigger) so there may be a greater tolerance for tiny spaces and comparative high prices. Chicago, on the other hand, doesn't have such a lengthy urban culture like that, so for urban units to sell, they have to cater to the more relaxed demands of a midwestern household (larger spaces, etc) which (coupled with Chicago's comparative median wage) pushes price/sq ft down. That being said, when you compare to Indianapolis, for example, I would imagine that the civic culture there is still predominantly detached single-family homes (as even with fairly consistent growth, it's still less than 1/4 the size of Chicago), so only a very specific, affluent clientele would go for downtown condos. I'm not terribly familiar with other midwestern cities (though Minneapolis is a surprisingly dense/urban city, despite having only 300-400k people), so I can't comment specifically on them.

Though as for geographical constraints - I keep asking this question and I don't really get a satisfying response (or any). San Francisco has a very limited geography, sure, but Boston? Could we all take a look at a map of Boston metro area and come to a consensus that it isn't geographically constrained (at least any more so than Chicago)? Same with Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, DC (to a certain extent), and some other cities with higher median home price than Chicago.

[Logsy]

I don't think that lack of physical constraints is the reason why Chicago is relatively cheap when compared with other major cities. It is simply lack of demand to live here. Look, River North and southern Streeterville could easily accomodate another 30-40 highrise bulidings. But those buildings are not being built becasue there is not enough demand to live here. So it's not like Chicago needs to expand outside it's inner core.

[AmericanDirt]

Originally Posted by simulcra

Though as for geographical constraints - I keep asking this question and I don't really get a satisfying response (or any). San Francisco has a very limited geography, sure, but Boston? Could we all take a look at a map of Boston metro area and come to a consensus that it isn't geographically constrained (at least any more so than Chicago)? Same with Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, DC (to a certain extent), and some other cities with higher median home price than Chicago.

Boston was built on the Shawmut Peninsula, which was at one time significantly smaller than San Francisco's Peninsula. Among the most-high profile neighborhoods created by civil engineering, soil dredging and infill is the Back Bay, formed along a part of the inlet created by the Charles River. (Much of South Boston was created through this tactic as well) But if it weren't for all the earth moving initiatives of the 19th century, Boston city limits would be significantly less than San Francisco's. Currently the land area for San Francisco is around 47 sq mi and Boston's is 48. But keep in mind, Boston annexed areas beyond its peninsula to both the south, north, and even a bit to the east (where Logan Airport stands--another infill project). Subtracting those from the aggregate would again make the Shawmut peninsula significantly smaller than San Francisco.

So I would certainly say that Boston is more constrained than Chicago. Washington DC does not have huge constraints that I'm aware of, though its original establishment depended on dredging swamps in the area that now forms the National Mall (of course this is well known). Not sure about those other cities you mentioned.

About the only thing that may give Boston a bit more room to "breathe" than San Francisco would be the fact that neighboring land masses are often only separated by a strait or a river rather than a large bay. Thus, transportation access through bridges is easier in Boston--you only have to cross the Charles River to reach Cambridge, for example. The Charlestown area of Boston also only requires bridge access.

It really has more to do with annexation patterns than anything, since both cities originate on peninsulas. Boston incorporated far more of surrounding lands into its city limits than San Francisco, but if the city of Boston were isolated to its peninsula the way San Fran is, it would probably only be about 10 square miles and a small but extremely dense city.

Comparing the metros, Boston certainly doesn't have quite the topography of San Francisco. But it is far more rugged than Chicago and that would typically incur at least a slightly greater cost. Chicago's only barrier is the lake, but the north, west, and south (as well as the southeast into Indiana) have no real barriers or challenges to speak of. Outside of the Calumet region (at the Indiana-Illinois line), wetlands do not pose a major problem either. Cornfields are extremely easy to develop, and the proof is in Chicago's rampant low-density suburbanization.

[simulcra]

Comparing the metros, Boston certainly doesn't have quite the topography of San Francisco. But it is far more rugged than Chicago and that would typically incur at least a slightly greater cost. Chicago's only barrier is the lake, but the north, west, and south (as well as the southeast into Indiana) have no real barriers or challenges to speak of. Outside of the Calumet region (at the Indiana-Illinois line), wetlands do not pose a major problem either. Cornfields are extremely easy to develop, and the proof is in Chicago's rampant low-density suburbanization.

If we're talking about early municipal development, then I might just have to chime in and mention that Chicago was similarly constrained, development wise, due to the difficulty of effectively crossing the Chicago River in its early history. IIRC, it wasn't until the michigan avenue bridge was built that development really started to occur outside of the loop/near south side.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by simulcra

the main thread running through my arguments is that, quite simply, in terms of homeowners, Chicago remains a largely middle-class city, and that is the reason why things are more affordable here. Home prices and cost of living can only go up if there's enough of a wealthy population to support it, and at that basic level, I'm not sure how we can dispute that.

Essentially, a lot of people have posted about the supply side of housing prices -- but there's also a demand side as well. Chicago's relative lack of super-wealthy people, who pull up the price of housing for everyone, helps keep prices here in check. Housing in the "boutique cities" (Manhattan, SF's core, etc.) is almost subject to a resort-town effect: there are substantial numbers of people there who will pay any price to get in (particularly within a very small core area), and thereby displace demand from those who "have" to live there. That isn't the case here.

That said, housing prices over a certain level are a drag on the local economy. Dollars spent on paying mortgages (low labor input) don't have as much of a regional economic multiplier effect as dollars spent on, say, restaurant meals (high labor input). Thus, relative affordability probably helps our regional economy on the whole.

[simulcra]

That said, housing prices over a certain level are a drag on the local economy. Dollars spent on paying mortgages (low labor input) don't have as much of a regional economic multiplier effect as dollars spent on, say, restaurant meals (high labor input). Thus, relative affordability probably helps our regional economy on the whole.

I have to second that. While it's nice for "bragging rights", there are lots of downsides to high cost of living - limited labor mobility being one of them. Importantly, while Chicago/Illinois might be in a competition for talent and be in a demographic shuffle for jobs, California/LA has had significant net domestic outmigration, high cost of living/real estate being the key factor.

Arguably, the main engine fueling Texas's continuing surge in economic growth and population in-migration is affordable cost of living. Of course, Texas "affordability" is a different order of magnitude cheaper than Chicago "affordability", but Chicago being a predominantly middle-class city is probably one of its best strengths as the nation kind of resorts into the new economic order.

[urbanlife78]

Talk about coming late to the party, I wish I would of noticed this thread sooner, but I wasnt thinking of moving to Chicago then.

I have been doing research for colleges for going to get my masters degree in architecture. Currently I am living in Portland, OR and over this past month of research (plus two trips to Chicago over the past three years, with another one coming this May,) I have felt that UIC and IIT deserve to be my number one and number two choices for grad schools (IIT impressed the hell out of me with my visit last year and I am seeing UIC on this trip.)

But doing some scouting on renting cost, as well as roommate costs (any good sites for rentals and roommate hunting for Chicago? Havent really found a good site besides craigslist and doesnt seem to be the best option,) I have been even more surprised to find that the cost of living is comparable to the cost here in Portland. I am currently paying 600 a month to live on the edge of downtown in a studio, and I have found studios along Belmont for the exact same price, which was really surprising to me.


Reading through the past three pages, I will say there is a number of points that is correct about Chicago's cost of housing, supply and demand is a basic one. Chicago was once 3.5 million people, now it is 2.8 million people, so there is definitely going to be more supply than demand (of course that is generally, there is going to be variances in dense neighborhoods of course.) Geography is another important factor, this city isnt on either of the coasts, therefore the need for fictionally inflated prices is not needed (I am sure one could find housing in Houston that was comparable to Chicago, I dont know for a fact because I have no interest in Houston.) Also, the fact that Chicago is not restrained by water or mountains is another important factor. Portland is much cheaper than Seattle because the actual city is much larger and does not have large bodies of water to restrain it. In places like Seattle, San Francisco, Manhattan, and Boston it would be like placing any one of those cities in Chicago and saying that was Chicago's limits. If you lived outside of those limits, then you are not in Chicago anymore and you only have a limited number of access points into Chicago and the boundary was easily defined. If Chicago had that kind of limitation, then we would be talking about a whole different issue.

But overall, I think the fact that Chicago isnt as expensive as those other list of cities is a hugely important factor. I would love more than anything to get into Pratt's masters degree and go to college in NYC, but for that to happen I would need to get a full ride into Pratt and hope for some big loans to take out for housing costs and maybe a roommate or two. In Chicago, I can still live in a massive urban city of almost 3 million people for almost 1/3 of the cost NYC would be, and for me that is a huge selling point when looking at grad schools and wanting to be living in a really big city that isnt LA or Houston.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by simulcra

IIRC, it wasn't until the michigan avenue bridge was built that development really started to occur outside of the loop/near south side.

Huh?? More than a million people lived on the North Side when the Michigan Avenue bridge was built.

[Flubnut]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

...any good sites for rentals and roommate hunting for Chicago? Havent really found a good site besides craigslist and doesnt seem to be the best option...

ChicagoReader.com is still the "real" local classifieds site.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Flubnut

ChicagoReader.com is still the "real" local classifieds site.

cool, thank you.

[simulcra]

Chicago was once 3.5 million people, now it is 2.8 million people, so there is definitely going to be more supply than demand

Just to nitpick, but that's not a good way to analyze that information. Homes are a lot larger now than what they were back then (and keep in mind that black neighborhoods frequently consisted of one-family homes that were greedily subdivided by exploitive landowners to cram many black families at once). So, while the population has fallen, it does not follow that supply "exceeds" demand, it may just be that demand is going for a type of housing stock that necessarily requires de-densification.

Portland is much cheaper than Seattle because the actual city is much larger and does not have large bodies of water to restrain it.

I'd also like to point out that Seattle also has a much, much, much higher concentration of wealth than Portland does. You could go out to the east side suburbs of Seattle (which aren't constrained by the sound) and still find sky-high cost of living.

Huh?? More than a million people lived on the North Side when the Michigan Avenue bridge was built.

Perhaps I misspoke. I didn't mean "the" michigan avenue bridge, I meant the first primary bridge crossing the river (before then ferries were used). By 1920ish (I think when "the" michigan avenue bridge was built), as you mention, there were already millions of people in chicago and L lines and streetcars connecting all the sides to the Loop.

[The Urban Politician]

Somebody at SSP (was it Ardecila?) a while ago posted Census data that showed that Chicago has more households than it has ever had in its history. The number of households in the city has continuously grown since its peak in the 1950's, it's just that household sizes have shrunk.

I'll see if I can find that data..

[Northsider]

The number of households in the city has continuously grown since its peak in the 1950's, it's just that household sizes have shrunk.

That's very interesting, I'd like to see that data

[urbanlife78]

Just to nitpick, but that's not a good way to analyze that information. Homes are a lot larger now than what they were back then (and keep in mind that black neighborhoods frequently consisted of one-family homes that were greedily subdivided by exploitive landowners to cram many black families at once). So, while the population has fallen, it does not follow that supply "exceeds" demand, it may just be that demand is going for a type of housing stock that necessarily requires de-densification.

Oh that isnt nitpicking at all, that is actually a true and important fact with any of our old city populations. We arent cramming three families into small apartments or renting out beds when they are not being used, so the supply of space has definitely changed. The whole supply and demand market is definitely a valid one, but one needs to also understand the changes cities and the way we live have taken.

I'd also like to point out that Seattle also has a much, much, much higher concentration of wealth than Portland does. You could go out to the east side suburbs of Seattle (which aren't constrained by the sound) and still find sky-high cost of living.

This is true, but the east side isnt Seattle, therefore technically someone living in Bellevue cannot say they live in Seattle. Which is more the point I was making, the expensive cost of living on the east side in the Puget Sound has more to do with what is over there, the number of high tech companies help push the cost upward in that case...plus I would also say it is a damn beautiful metro to live in and much easier for rents to be high along the east side. Again, many different factors go into the high cost of housing. In comparison to Portland, one can live in very rich neighborhoods here and still say they live in Portland because they are still within city limits.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Northsider

That's very interesting, I'd like to see that data

No data to provide, but people are no longer having 5-7 kids anymore. When families are having between 0-3 kids, it is usually a safe bet to say the household sizes have fallen. Who needs a litter of kids these days unless you want a reality TV show?

[The Urban Politician]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

No data to provide, but people are no longer having 5-7 kids anymore. When families are having between 0-3 kids, it is usually a safe bet to say the household sizes have fallen. Who needs a litter of kids these days unless you want a reality TV show?

^ My point is that, with Chicago having more households than it has ever had, the "oversupply of housing" theory that you proposed may not really explain Chicago's cheaper prices.

The households may be smaller, but they're still households.

On a side note, I would argue that much of what Chicago lost in population from 1950-2010 was non tax-paying, tax-consuming children. Add to that the fact that far more women are in the tax-producing workforce in 2010 compared to 1950, and Chicago's time-adjusted tax base may actually have stayed even or perhaps grown.

Does anybody have any hard facts to support/disprove that assumption? I'd be curious..