If we make it affordable and easy to live in Lakeview or Lincoln Park or Bucktown, many people will choose Chicago because those neighborhoods are great. And as they grow, they will attract more amenities and talent and fancy stores and stuff that can only exist within areas of dense wealth. As those neighborhoods become *even more* appealing, Chicago's increased tax base and larger population can only mean that even more bohemians will want to live former industrial buildings on the Southwest side and the bigger city budget can benefit people all over the city.
On the other hand, if we prevent Chicago's superstar neighborhoods from developing, hoping that we can force affluent people who are already in Chicago to sprawl out by making it ever more expensive to live near transit and the lake, we aren't going to grow. Sure, people who HAVE to live in Chicago and can no longer afford Lakeview will move to Bronzeville or Uptown or Little Village and their presence will still spread some of global Chicago into every corner.
But your option is a zero-sum game. People who don't HAVE to live in Chicago will simply move to Atlanta or Minneapolis if the alternative is moving to Chicago, but in Douglas Park. And this doesn't grow the tax base or our talent pool. Gatekeeping the best parts of cities is like putting a tariff on moving here, but the revenue from the tariff goes to Texas.
I’m not sure that materially more people will live in Chicagoland if the most desirable parts of the city are massively upzoned so as to expand the number of housing units there. It is simply too cold in the winter. However, I agree that Chicago should make hay where the sun shines and do everything it can to increase its tax base. A denser Chicago with more tax money is probably good for the entire region, as even if suburbs lose some of their tax base, money spent on public safety and infrastructure probably goes a lot farther in Chicago proper due to its greater population density.
If it was too cold too attract people Chicago wouldn't have as many employed people living in it--about 1.4M--as are employed in the cities of San Francisco, Seattle and Atlanta combined. It has almost identical weather to Boston.
Beyond that, Chicago IS attracting new, talented residents. From 2013-2022 we saw a 52% increase in taxpayers earning $100,000-$500,000 and an 80% increase in those earning more than $500,000. In 2000 25% of Chicago residents had a college degree and in 2022 that number was 43.7%, tops among the largest U.S. cities.
Chicago's population is largely flat because while we are adding high income residents we have been losing low income residents, about 200,000 in about the last decade. We've seen an 11% reduction in people claiming the earned income tax credit. If we keep gaining college grads at the rate we have been and stop hemorrhaging low-income residents Chicago will be in for a renaissance.
It’s worrying how much the housing discussions among urbanists, especially as they relate to rust belt metros, seem to be lacking in fundamental understanding of how development works. You do a great job of bringing some insight. This is definitely a topic where I don’t claim any expertise.
Lately I been trying to wrap my mind around the housing dynamics in a 1.7 square mile area that is centered on what is arguably the most disadvantaged neighborhood in Milwaukee (Amani). I researched in depth as part of a grant application I wrote for a homeless sanctuary I support that is focused on this neighborhood. The 8 census tracts were all redlined in whole or part in 1938 at which time 99.99% of the 37000 residents were white. The density was actually greater than this number suggests as there was a major industrial corridor crossing through the area. Nearly every lot had one or more accessory dwellings (so I guess a dream neighborhood for an urbanist of today). But with nearly every one of the 11000 residences burning coal for heat probably not a paradise for anyone with respiratory illnesses. The area is now 97% black but was already in decline when there were only about 10 black residents. Over 8500 of the houses that existed in 1940 have been demolished and there were another 1300 vacant as of 2022. The population has declined by over 40% since 2000 alone. In spite of the vacancy the residents served by the sanctuary can’t find affordable housing and those with children are at risk of their children suffering permanent health damage as 80% of the children tested by the sanctuary over the past 3 years were suffering from lead poisoning.
Not sure what point I’m trying to make but one would be that sometimes the original redline maps reflected the fundamental undesirability of the development patterns in these neighborhoods. High quality accessory dwelling units are a great idea in a highly desirable high amenity neighborhood but they were a characteristic of an undesirable neighborhood back in 1890’s through 1920’s when this neighborhood was developed. I think a lot of urbanists don’t fully appreciate the challenges of the poisoned landscape of these older neighborhoods, from the atmospheric fallout from the 20000 tons or more of coal being burnt in this 1.7 square mile area for 5-6 decades before the switch to fuel oil and the lead in water pipes, paint, and the surface soil surrounding every residence.
I find this housing stalemate that exists in Chicago and other cities across the nation so frustrating to contemplate that I had hoped you would finish with a definitive series of steps to exit this situation instead of an open ended discussion. To hell with all these restrictions, let's just build, build, build and let the market chips fall where they may. But no, letting the market rule is callous and will result in rampant displacement of the poor who will be forced out to inconvenient low-amenity locations. Well let's set aside low income housing units! But no, such housing when concentrated in towers becomes a laboratory and factory for destructive pathologies including crime, family breakdown, and the collapse of civil society. Chicago found out about this the hard way. Well, just scatter the low income units amongst the market rate housing! Hold on, I worked hard for my home and played by the rules. This is my prize investment. No way are you putting those people next door or in my neighborhood. I'm a taxpayer, dammit, and you'll ruin the area as you wreck my property values. Well, let's increase investment in those disinvested areas! Let's encourage small business to open in our neighborhoods like they do in the prosperous downtown and northside precincts! Oh no you don't! Keep your bougie coffee shops, high-end fitness centers, and pet daycare out of my neighborhood! Next thing you know, rents will shoot up and I won't be able to afford a damn thing anymore. Oh well, maybe I can find a bargain by being bold and moving to someplace that's a little rough around the edges. Great, I found a nice place, not much nearby but the area has potential. I wish there were a nice place to get coffee and pastries. I'd love it if I could run in someplace convenient to get a bottle of wine for dinner. I think I'll plant flowers out front...what, why are the locals hostile, I just want to be a good neighbor. What do you mean I'm a "Gentrifier,"? I just want to do a little remodeling. Can't we have some nice things around here?
Really, it's all enough to make one bitter and cynical. I like urban life and Chicago is a great city, but when it comes to matters of housing and choosing a place to live, increasingly it's more and more difficult for me or anyone to do anything without becoming the villain in someone else's scenario. It seems easier to retreat into my own citadel of affluence and turn off the noise coming from everybody else. Do I risk becoming a member of the oblivious elite? I wish, but not at my income level.
What Chicago needs most is to grow.
If we make it affordable and easy to live in Lakeview or Lincoln Park or Bucktown, many people will choose Chicago because those neighborhoods are great. And as they grow, they will attract more amenities and talent and fancy stores and stuff that can only exist within areas of dense wealth. As those neighborhoods become *even more* appealing, Chicago's increased tax base and larger population can only mean that even more bohemians will want to live former industrial buildings on the Southwest side and the bigger city budget can benefit people all over the city.
On the other hand, if we prevent Chicago's superstar neighborhoods from developing, hoping that we can force affluent people who are already in Chicago to sprawl out by making it ever more expensive to live near transit and the lake, we aren't going to grow. Sure, people who HAVE to live in Chicago and can no longer afford Lakeview will move to Bronzeville or Uptown or Little Village and their presence will still spread some of global Chicago into every corner.
But your option is a zero-sum game. People who don't HAVE to live in Chicago will simply move to Atlanta or Minneapolis if the alternative is moving to Chicago, but in Douglas Park. And this doesn't grow the tax base or our talent pool. Gatekeeping the best parts of cities is like putting a tariff on moving here, but the revenue from the tariff goes to Texas.
I’m not sure that materially more people will live in Chicagoland if the most desirable parts of the city are massively upzoned so as to expand the number of housing units there. It is simply too cold in the winter. However, I agree that Chicago should make hay where the sun shines and do everything it can to increase its tax base. A denser Chicago with more tax money is probably good for the entire region, as even if suburbs lose some of their tax base, money spent on public safety and infrastructure probably goes a lot farther in Chicago proper due to its greater population density.
If it was too cold too attract people Chicago wouldn't have as many employed people living in it--about 1.4M--as are employed in the cities of San Francisco, Seattle and Atlanta combined. It has almost identical weather to Boston.
Beyond that, Chicago IS attracting new, talented residents. From 2013-2022 we saw a 52% increase in taxpayers earning $100,000-$500,000 and an 80% increase in those earning more than $500,000. In 2000 25% of Chicago residents had a college degree and in 2022 that number was 43.7%, tops among the largest U.S. cities.
Chicago's population is largely flat because while we are adding high income residents we have been losing low income residents, about 200,000 in about the last decade. We've seen an 11% reduction in people claiming the earned income tax credit. If we keep gaining college grads at the rate we have been and stop hemorrhaging low-income residents Chicago will be in for a renaissance.
It’s worrying how much the housing discussions among urbanists, especially as they relate to rust belt metros, seem to be lacking in fundamental understanding of how development works. You do a great job of bringing some insight. This is definitely a topic where I don’t claim any expertise.
Lately I been trying to wrap my mind around the housing dynamics in a 1.7 square mile area that is centered on what is arguably the most disadvantaged neighborhood in Milwaukee (Amani). I researched in depth as part of a grant application I wrote for a homeless sanctuary I support that is focused on this neighborhood. The 8 census tracts were all redlined in whole or part in 1938 at which time 99.99% of the 37000 residents were white. The density was actually greater than this number suggests as there was a major industrial corridor crossing through the area. Nearly every lot had one or more accessory dwellings (so I guess a dream neighborhood for an urbanist of today). But with nearly every one of the 11000 residences burning coal for heat probably not a paradise for anyone with respiratory illnesses. The area is now 97% black but was already in decline when there were only about 10 black residents. Over 8500 of the houses that existed in 1940 have been demolished and there were another 1300 vacant as of 2022. The population has declined by over 40% since 2000 alone. In spite of the vacancy the residents served by the sanctuary can’t find affordable housing and those with children are at risk of their children suffering permanent health damage as 80% of the children tested by the sanctuary over the past 3 years were suffering from lead poisoning.
Not sure what point I’m trying to make but one would be that sometimes the original redline maps reflected the fundamental undesirability of the development patterns in these neighborhoods. High quality accessory dwelling units are a great idea in a highly desirable high amenity neighborhood but they were a characteristic of an undesirable neighborhood back in 1890’s through 1920’s when this neighborhood was developed. I think a lot of urbanists don’t fully appreciate the challenges of the poisoned landscape of these older neighborhoods, from the atmospheric fallout from the 20000 tons or more of coal being burnt in this 1.7 square mile area for 5-6 decades before the switch to fuel oil and the lead in water pipes, paint, and the surface soil surrounding every residence.
I find this housing stalemate that exists in Chicago and other cities across the nation so frustrating to contemplate that I had hoped you would finish with a definitive series of steps to exit this situation instead of an open ended discussion. To hell with all these restrictions, let's just build, build, build and let the market chips fall where they may. But no, letting the market rule is callous and will result in rampant displacement of the poor who will be forced out to inconvenient low-amenity locations. Well let's set aside low income housing units! But no, such housing when concentrated in towers becomes a laboratory and factory for destructive pathologies including crime, family breakdown, and the collapse of civil society. Chicago found out about this the hard way. Well, just scatter the low income units amongst the market rate housing! Hold on, I worked hard for my home and played by the rules. This is my prize investment. No way are you putting those people next door or in my neighborhood. I'm a taxpayer, dammit, and you'll ruin the area as you wreck my property values. Well, let's increase investment in those disinvested areas! Let's encourage small business to open in our neighborhoods like they do in the prosperous downtown and northside precincts! Oh no you don't! Keep your bougie coffee shops, high-end fitness centers, and pet daycare out of my neighborhood! Next thing you know, rents will shoot up and I won't be able to afford a damn thing anymore. Oh well, maybe I can find a bargain by being bold and moving to someplace that's a little rough around the edges. Great, I found a nice place, not much nearby but the area has potential. I wish there were a nice place to get coffee and pastries. I'd love it if I could run in someplace convenient to get a bottle of wine for dinner. I think I'll plant flowers out front...what, why are the locals hostile, I just want to be a good neighbor. What do you mean I'm a "Gentrifier,"? I just want to do a little remodeling. Can't we have some nice things around here?
Really, it's all enough to make one bitter and cynical. I like urban life and Chicago is a great city, but when it comes to matters of housing and choosing a place to live, increasingly it's more and more difficult for me or anyone to do anything without becoming the villain in someone else's scenario. It seems easier to retreat into my own citadel of affluence and turn off the noise coming from everybody else. Do I risk becoming a member of the oblivious elite? I wish, but not at my income level.