Why is Chicago so affordable?

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

And that 500-700 gets you a room in a sweet apartment in a great neighborhood cause 700 can get you a good studio or possibly a 1 bedroom in a good neighborhood with a commute time that isn't that bad.

My first apartment was in an 1892 3-flat right on the border of Lincoln Park and Lakeview, 2 blocks from the Brown Line, 3 bedrooms. $900/mo. 'nuff said. I don't know how Chicago manages it, but I hope it stays that way.

[TheKorean]

^When was this? The rent might have skyrocketed since then.

But if its still there, shit I am taking it and charging rent myself.

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by TheKorean

^When was this? The rent might have skyrocketed since then.

But if its still there, shit I am taking it and charging rent myself.

It was 7 years ago. 2004-2006. It very well could have skyrocketed. There was a lot of updating to be done (furnace/heat sucked, walls/windows leaked cold air, unfinished floors, etc)...but if nothing was done to it it's probably at the same level. http://chicago.blockshopper.com/prop...18_w_diversey/

What a great piece of history that was!

[PointDuSable]

Northsider: that may have been the steal of the decade! I know when I lived in Univ. Village in a turn of the century 3 flat, I was paying $1,200 for an old 2 bedroom, 1 bath with a small kitchen and no dinette/kitchen area to speak of - just a kitchen off of a living room, and that was 2006-07. Plus the bedrooms had zero natural light as they faced north directly next to another building. I thought that was a bargain none-the-less at the time.

I'm renting my condo in the near South Loop right now, and I've been talking to some agent and broker friends of mine who have been saying rents should be going up rather significantly this spring/summer. A lot of landlords haven't raised rents during the downturn, but since there's been no significant supply increase in the past few years, coupled with more people choosing to rent (I guess not all are choosing, as banks are being super picky about loaning to buyers), that demand for rentals is going up. So will be interesting to see how the market plays out. The one thing about Chicago, despite all the census data, is that a lot of Big 10 grads still flock to the city every year, and they definitely help to prop up the rental market.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Northsider

My first apartment was in an 1892 3-flat right on the border of Lincoln Park and Lakeview, 2 blocks from the Brown Line, 3 bedrooms. $900/mo. 'nuff said. I don't know how Chicago manages it, but I hope it stays that way.

This is definitely a reason why if I get into a grad school in Chicago and NYC, Chicago will probably win out because I feel like my money would go so much further in Chicago...plus flights to NYC from Chicago are fairly cheap and I could easily visit that city and still be able to afford to fly back to the northwest to visit friends and family.

I am actually a little sad that I won't be making my annual trip to Chicago this year, but I have replaced it with a trip to NYC instead, so I am definitely going to have plenty of fun this spring.

[Third of a kind]

I've recently been spending alot of time in Chicago...so I'll chime in on this conversation.

Some of my family had moved into I guess the gold coast/river north area, and I came out to Chicago to visit them on numerous occasions. Coming from New York, I was surprised that a neighborhood like that had affordable apts in it. Sure there are luxury/renovated buildings but your literally steps away from the John Hancock building and you can get by. This would not be possible in New York, unless you were living in a rent stabilized apartment or something. The question I came to ask myself is why aren't other cities priced like Chicago...this should be the norm IMO. To me this River North neighborhood feels like the UWS in some parts. Its kinda weird how they build some of the buildings with the parking garage under...kinda nifty I guess.

It is weird how the highways seem to screw up the flow of feeding into downtown (unless your traveling from the north it seems).

There's still a lot I have to explore in Chicago, with all the trains and buildings it doesn't feel like New York to me...it feels like Chicago lol.

Ironically Chicago rents remind me alot of Philadelphia rents, incredible bargins (esp if your coming from a place like New York).

[PointDuSable]

Originally Posted by Third of a kind

I've recently been spending alot of time in Chicago...so I'll chime in on this conversation.

Some of my family had moved into I guess the gold coast/river north area, and I came out to Chicago to visit them on numerous occasions. Coming from New York, I was surprised that a neighborhood like that had affordable apts in it. Sure there are luxury/renovated buildings but your literally steps away from the John Hancock building and you can get by. This would not be possible in New York, unless you were living in a rent stabilized apartment or something. The question I came to ask myself is why aren't other cities priced like Chicago...this should be the norm IMO. To me this River North neighborhood feels like the UWS in some parts. Its kinda weird how they build some of the buildings with the parking garage under...kinda nifty I guess.

It is weird how the highways seem to screw up the flow of feeding into downtown (unless your traveling from the north it seems).

There's still a lot I have to explore in Chicago, with all the trains and buildings it doesn't feel like New York to me...it feels like Chicago lol.

Ironically Chicago rents remind me alot of Philadelphia rents, incredible bargins (esp if your coming from a place like New York).

You know, I think a lot depends on the building/block you're looking at/talking about in each respective city. For all the talk about NYC's outrageous-ness -- I know there are people spending $3k+ for 1 bedrooms and all that -- but in all honesty, I don't think it's as bad as many make it out to be. You can find 2 bedrooms on the Upper East Side for $2300-2600/month (just check craigslist). Upper west side you can find 2 beds or 1 bed for slightly less, particularly if its in a rowhouse. It's going to be an older building, fewer amenities, probably not a great view, but it'll be decent. It is cheap? Not in my book, but it's not as crazy as some people make it out to be. That's not much higher than what I charge for my 2bed/2ba South Loop condo (though I do include parking).

Meanwhile, I have a friend in Chicago who pays damn $2k for a studio in a building with a premiere address and location -- yes, he has parking and an amazing view, but my point is you can go as crazy (or reasonable) with the rents in both Chicago and New York, depending on the building/block/location/view etc. In Chicago, however, you will get more bank for your buck, generally-speaking, and there are more choices in/around city center, while I concede you will have less options in NYC and Manhattan proper. But just as in Chicago, if you go out father from downtown and Near Northside, you'll get better deals, similarly in NY, if you go to Brooklyn and Hoboken, you will get better deals as well.

Funny, after spending considerable time in NY, I'm starting to see more similarities than differences with Chicago, which I wouldn't have admitted to before. Both cities have their own vibes, but realistically, I think they are the major metro areas in the US that are the most similar: like cousins in fact, one obviously bigger than the other.

Anyway, to your last point, you can't say the highways in/around NY are good or better. The bridge/highway system in NYC really screws up the feed going in out/of Manhattan, and that whole area near the NYMEX/Battery Park -- the Brooklyn Battery Toll Road (9A) between Greenwich St. and Hudson River parkway is a disaster zone and a pedestrian nightmare!! Don't even get me started I-698, 295, or 495 in the boroughs...

[The Urban Politician]

I think Chicago's core is underpriced, plain and simple. I'm not sure when or if society will ever fully appreciate that, but that's how I feel, and here is why:

Spending time downtown, pretty much everything you could possibly want is at your fingertips or at least easily accessible. Chicago also still has a lot of potential for downtown growth, as opposed to say Philadelphia or San Francisco, with a massive number of downtown jobs which can still drive residential & mixed-use development for many more generations.

As much as we all hate it, the suburban retail going up at North/Clybourn and Roosevelt/Canal (Home Depot, Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, Crate & Barrel, nearly every conceivable car dealership--luxury or not, etc etc) pretty much makes it feasible for one to have the whole gamut of the American shopping experience without having to travel outside of the city's core. Add in Walmart's latest endeavors, and that will be even more so.

Greater society may or may not ever fully "get" the true value of what Chicago has to offer, but I sure do.

[Urbanight]

This is from a post by Edward Gleaser on Economix, a NYTimes blog

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...cy-in-chicago/

"Mr. Daley’s most important contribution to the city’s growth may have been his enthusiastic support of construction. New York, Boston and other cities have enforced regulations that make it difficult to build, and overly restricted supply makes cities unaffordable.

"In Chicago, the mayor has ensured that building faces few barriers, and that keeps Chicago affordable."

[Third of a kind]

Originally Posted by PointDuSable

You know, I think a lot depends on the building/block you're looking at/talking about in each respective city. For all the talk about NYC's outrageous-ness -- I know there are people spending $3k+ for 1 bedrooms and all that -- but in all honesty, I don't think it's as bad as many make it out to be. You can find 2 bedrooms on the Upper East Side for $2300-2600/month (just check craigslist). Upper west side you can find 2 beds or 1 bed for slightly less, particularly if its in a rowhouse. It's going to be an older building, fewer amenities, probably not a great view, but it'll be decent. It is cheap? Not in my book, but it's not as crazy as some people make it out to be. That's not much higher than what I charge for my 2bed/2ba South Loop condo (though I do include parking).

Meanwhile, I have a friend in Chicago who pays damn $2k for a studio in a building with a premiere address and location -- yes, he has parking and an amazing view, but my point is you can go as crazy (or reasonable) with the rents in both Chicago and New York, depending on the building/block/location/view etc. In Chicago, however, you will get more bank for your buck, generally-speaking, and there are more choices in/around city center, while I concede you will have less options in NYC and Manhattan proper. But just as in Chicago, if you go out father from downtown and Near Northside, you'll get better deals, similarly in NY, if you go to Brooklyn and Hoboken, you will get better deals as well.

Funny, after spending considerable time in NY, I'm starting to see more similarities than differences with Chicago, which I wouldn't have admitted to before. Both cities have their own vibes, but realistically, I think they are the major metro areas in the US that are the most similar: like cousins in fact, one obviously bigger than the other.

Anyway, to your last point, you can't say the highways in/around NY are good or better. The bridge/highway system in NYC really screws up the feed going in out/of Manhattan, and that whole area near the NYMEX/Battery Park -- the Brooklyn Battery Toll Road (9A) between Greenwich St. and Hudson River parkway is a disaster zone and a pedestrian nightmare!! Don't even get me started I-698, 295, or 495 in the boroughs...

Well when I mention the highway system, around downtown Chicago..I don't mean by accessing it in a car. I mean by walking/train, I feel there's more a flow out here (in ny) getting on and off and accessing pt. It almost seems as if its feeding into the loop instead of pulse based. I think in NY you do have some ped nightmares but I don't really pay attention to some of them because I've been dealing with them my whole life.

I'll be alittle more specific in location as well, the area my family out there lives in reminds me of 86th and bway (but definitely more toned down). I can't believe the price that they're paying to live there. As a matter of fact i'll be out there in a couple of weekends, this time i'll take some pics and maybe post them up. At the same time I know what you mean in terms of prices..I know people living in prime parts of the UES paying as little as $500 a month compared so some people I know paying over 2k (which is still a deal in the ues)


TUP mentions something interesting that i've noticed around I think its the clybourn station (red). There's an interesting apple store right there...but there's all this new development and suburban retail. Its interesting, I still feel like there's so much of the city towards the south and west that I have to (and will) explore.


Why is the ikea located so far away? with traffic it takes so long to get there? any of you guys know if its possible to get out there by rail/bus combinations?

[tpe]

Well, you do get rentals for under 2000 USD in the UES and the UWS in NYC. But frankly, I would not consider many of these apartments at such prices. IMO, you only start to get reasonably good spaces in Uptown at 2500 USD and up -- typically closer to 3000 USD. There are in fact many apartments in these neighborhoods where, at around 2500 USD, you can get a "charming" garden apartment below street level, with a delicious view of the dumpsters. And 3000 USD in a new doorman building is NOT going to be luxurious by any stretch of the imagination.

And we're not even talking about the Village and Soho, where 3000 USD would probably get you a "decent" studio (by my estimation).

I think that as far as rentals (and purchases) go, the Far East of the UES has some of the better bargains in the island, although a "bargain" is relative, strictly speaking.

Sure, you can get "cheap" rentals in Manhattan. But truth be told, you get more for the money in Chicago.

[Northsider]

Why is the ikea located so far away? with traffic it takes so long to get there? any of you guys know if its possible to get out there by rail/bus combinations?

Taxes?

Rail/bus would be definitely be difficult. I imagine there is a Pace bus or buses that make their way to Woodfield mall. There is are some Metra stops in the area, but quite a distance from the mall.

http://www.pacebus.com/pdf/RTA_System_map.pdf

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by PointDuSable

my point is you can go as crazy (or reasonable) with the rents in both Chicago and New York, depending on the building/block/location/view etc.

Plus, I think that this whole thread about Chicago's "affordability" relies entirely on how Chicago compares to New York and -to a lesser extent- San Francisco or Boston. Chicago is "affordable" because almost every post here has compared Chicago only to New York.

Chicago is still one of the more expensive metropolitan areas in the United States easy, as many of my coworkers who have moved here from Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, St Louis, Denver, and other large metropolitan areas with 2+ million people, find the Chicago metropolitan area expensive. Even Minneapolis has a higher cost of living compared to the national average, and Chicago has a higher cost of living than Minnie.

And when you step back from Manhattan and take a look at the greater NYC area as a whole, it's not that expensive...Jersey and Long Island, for example, are similar to the Chicago metropolitan area as far as cost of living. I think the difference between Chicago and New York is that Chicago's city core isn't that much more expensive than the outskirts and the nearer suburbs, whereas in NYC there's a considerable price difference in general.

Plus, as PointduSable pointed out, it is possible to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn without an exorbitant rent. And New York's core is almost completely built-up, while Chicago still has a long way to go, despite being denser than any other US city except NYC and perhaps San Fran (even Boston and Philly can use more in-fill...especially Philly with its expanses of deserted 19th-century townhouses outside of Center City).

Additionally, some of the "cheap Chicago rents" mentioned in this thread are certainly quite affordable ($900/month is very good), but is this really the norm?? And unfortunately, there's a large swathe of the population that couldn't afford that, and are forced to live outside the core in run-down areas. The city needs more affordable housing located in economically-diverse neighborhoods that include middle-class and wealthy residents as well, plus excellent public transit and vibrant economies.

Originally Posted by Third of a kind

Why is the ikea located so far away? with traffic it takes so long to get there? any of you guys know if its possible to get out there by rail/bus combinations?

Zipcar.

IKEA is located far away because it requires a lot of land. Theoretically, this could have also been built somewhere in the farther parts of the South Side (maybe if Chicagoland gets a 3rd IKEA?). IKEA requires a large parking lot...almost anything you buy from there will require a car to carry it. Looking at IKEA's website, almost all IKEAs are located outside of city cores.

[Northsider]

And when you step back from Manhattan and take a look at the greater NYC area as a whole, it's not that expensive...

You may have a point here. NYC is so seemingly Manhattan-centric...comparing anything to that island is almost ridiculous. When looking at the outer boroughs and NJ the similarities are more apparent with SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly, etc.

Additionally, some of the "cheap Chicago rents" mentioned in this thread are certainly quite affordable ($900/month is very good), but is this really the norm?? And unfortunately, there's a large swathe of the population that couldn't afford that, and are forced to live outside the core in run-down areas.

$900 is certainly not the norm in Lincoln Park/Lakeview, but it's easily findable in the less "yuppie" areas of the city...hardly "run down areas" as you say. My point was merely that if you look hard enough, great deals can be had in Chicago even in the most expensive areas.

Chicago is still one of the more expensive metropolitan areas in the United States easy, as many of my coworkers who have moved here from Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, St Louis, Denver, and other large metropolitan areas with 2+ million people, find the Chicago metropolitan area expensive. Even Minneapolis has a higher cost of living compared to the national average, and Chicago has a higher cost of living than Minnie.

I guess Chicago is most often compared to LA and NYC because all three are generally considered the "alpha cities" of the USA, thus the standard of living is expected to be much higher...yet Chicago manages to keep it down comparably. Sure, if you compare to STL and Denver Chicago is going to look really expensive...but are they really in the same league? I don't mean to go city vs city here, but Denver vs Chicago? Minneapolis vs Chicago?!? I don't think they are fair comparisons.

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by Northsider

$900 is certainly not the norm in Lincoln Park/Lakeview, but it's easily findable in the less "yuppie" areas of the city...hardly "run down areas" as you say.

No, I meant that for many people $900/month is way beyond their budget, and these folks are forced to live in run-down economic ghettos. $900/month can get you a great place in a very decent neighborhood, as you said. But it's unaffordable to many. I'm not trying to negate Chicago's affordability when compared to New York...I'm just trying to highlight a social problem. And I agree that Los Angeles (and also San Francisco and Washington) are much more accurate comparisons to Chicago than St Louis or Minneapolis, of course.

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by skyduster

No, I meant that for many people $900/month is way beyond their budget, and these folks are forced to live in run-down economic ghettos. $900/month can get you a great place in a very decent neighborhood, as you said. But it's unaffordable to many. I'm not trying to negate Chicago's affordability when compared to New York...I'm just trying to highlight a social problem. And I agree that Los Angeles (and also San Francisco and Washington) are much more accurate comparisons to Chicago than St Louis or Minneapolis, of course.

It was $900 for 3 bedrooms. If you can't afford $300/mo rent it's probably better to stay with your parents...

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by skyduster

Plus, I think that this whole thread about Chicago's "affordability" relies entirely on how Chicago compares to New York and -to a lesser extent- San Francisco or Boston. Chicago is "affordable" because almost every post here has compared Chicago only to New York.

Well I have found Chicago to be comparable in price to Portland, Or and Portland is known as one of the most affordable larger cities on the west coast.

Originally Posted by skyduster

No, I meant that for many people $900/month is way beyond their budget, and these folks are forced to live in run-down economic ghettos. $900/month can get you a great place in a very decent neighborhood, as you said. But it's unaffordable to many. I'm not trying to negate Chicago's affordability when compared to New York...I'm just trying to highlight a social problem. And I agree that Los Angeles (and also San Francisco and Washington) are much more accurate comparisons to Chicago than St Louis or Minneapolis, of course.

You are now talking about a much different issue that has nothing to do with Chicago's affordability. You are now looking at the term "affordability" in the sense of is it affordable to everyone, which in any city the answer would be no. This is where issues with government housing and reduced rents come in to play which has little to do with this topic mostly because if you want to get into that, I am sure NYC has a much bigger problem with this than Chicago does. I am sure if you went to almost anyone in NYC and asked them if they would like to have an 1bedroom apartment in a decent, safe neighborhood in NYC for $900/month, they would ask you who they had to kill to make it happen.

[60640]

Originally Posted by pozcircuitboy

Two reasons it's so cheap in Chicago compared to other major cities. First, Chicago proper is *huge* in terms of land area, particularly compared to Boston and NYC. Second, there is no geographical delimiter between areas of the city and suburbs; it's a conglomerate, *yet it's an old city with a huge CBD*. There are some threads about city populations that mention this peculiarity about Chicago as compared to NYC and Boston. It's also worth mentioning that Chicago has very little national press for a city its size. I know this is first-hand experience based, but most Texans I meet when I'm visiting my parents don't know what state Chicago is in!

They don't know what state Chicago is in? Now that's a whole different subject.....lol

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by 60640

They don't know what state Chicago is in? Now that's a whole different subject.....lol

lol that honestly isn't that big if a deal, when I was younger I didn't know where Washington DC was located, and I think I remember asking my parents and they weren't positive either lol....

Still though, Chicago is an alpha city. I would probably laugh at anyone that didn't know where it's located.

edit - I just realized you said "most" ... I have been to Texas many times, and find this extremely hard to believe. Is there any chance that your parents live in a retirement home where everyone has lost their memory, or has Alzheimer's ?

I guess Chicago is most often compared to LA and NYC because all three are generally considered the "alpha cities" of the USA, thus the standard of living is expected to be much higher...yet Chicago manages to keep it down comparably. Sure, if you compare to STL and Denver Chicago is going to look really expensive...but are they really in the same league? I don't mean to go city vs city here, but Denver vs Chicago? Minneapolis vs Chicago?!? I don't think they are fair comparisons.

You should probably be thankful for that! By comparing Chicago and Denver's prices, they aren't saying that Chicago isn't a global city, they are saying that it is somehow affordable. No one is denying that Chicago is an alpha city, for God sake, it has the 3rd highest economic output in the world...

Of course it is way ahead of Denver or Minneapolis, they are just comparing housing prices

[WI_1982]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

No one is denying that Chicago is an alpha city, for God sake, it has the 3rd highest economic output in the world...

Of course it is way ahead of Denver or Minneapolis, they are just comparing housing prices

Chicago has the fifth largest economy in the U.S. (behind, in order, NYC, LA, DC, and SF).

There's no way it has the third largest economy in the world. It's probably Top 15 globally, which would, by most measures, make it an "alpha" city.

And I don't think anyone was comparing Chicago with Denver, just like no one is comparing Chicago with New York. They're just looking at relative housing prices.

Chicago is much larger than Denver, and in a different class, just like New York is much larger than Chicago, and in a different class.