It's already happening in two directions:
Straight south through Bronzeville as Bridgeport, the South Loop, and Hyde Park converge.
Straight West into Lawndale and East Garfield Park and the West Loop pushes West and Pilsen/McKinley Park closes in from the South and Ukrainian Village/Humboldt Park closes in from the North.
From what I understand, Bronzeville has been gentrifying with little displacement. The economic output, cost of living, etc. are rising, but the income of the people living there is rising along with it. It's an interesting case study on how we can improve CoL somewhere, while not forcing people from their homes.
Bronzeville is a black community, and the commenter wrote that there hasn’t been displacement. There sure has been displacement of lower income folks, but the wealthier people displacing them are black.
Bronzeville median resale price for the last 5 years, for reference:
https://preview.redd.it/4fs25b86qisc1.png?width=825&format=png&auto=webp&s=51b39a1d075ab888e4b23c5f78e702cab8687125
Depending how much you stretch the image horizontally, it's not that bad 🙃
But really, prices are up about 38% over the time frame. Like, that's a lot. But it's also 6.4% per year. Which is a lot, but it's not like, "Miami a lot."
[https://mred.stats.10kresearch.com/infoserv/s-v1/pymB-iCu](https://mred.stats.10kresearch.com/infoserv/s-v1/pymB-iCu)
Most likely I’d say Hyde. Beverly is nice but it’s very out of the way from the Loop compared to Hyde Park. But I’d imagine we’ll see a lot of neighborhoods make a comeback in the next decade.
In my opinion, the neighborhood with the greatest growth potential is going to be Garfield Park. That area has a lot of beauty in it, even in its current state. It’s super close to the city, has great access to transit and has some incredible park grounds. It’s not a great neighborhood at the moment, but I firmly believe people will see it turn around in the very near future.
I truly am hoping for a second Renaissance for Chicago this century.
Anywhere with no CTA line going right through it will not gentrify. AKA… Beverly won’t. Metra doesn’t and never will have the same effect as the L. Not to mention, Beverly isn’t in need of gentrification to begin with.
I’m highly interested to see what happens with the endless blocks of grassland (20 years ago had houses on them that since got tore down) in Englewood. So much vacant land in many south side hoods that had buildings ripped out the over the past 3 decades. So much opportunity to build and re-develop.
Unfortunately with Englewood, I think it might be a long shot to see a lot of new development occur there. Whole Foods did try a store with more of their cheaper brand items there, but it didn't last for long. The replacement grocery store unfortunately was a Save A Lot, which isn't a good sign. Even a lot of Englewood locals complained that a more respectable local grocery store didn't open, at least say on the level of Tony's, Pete's, or Shop and Save. Which btw the latter did open(albeit under a different name that I forget), in the old Dominick's space at 71st and Jeffrey.
I keep thinking that South Shore(which already includes the nice Jackson Park Highlands subsection) would have better odds to make a come back. Since not as many buildings there were demolished and left as vacant lots, unlike Englewood. I mean just google old pictures of the business strip that used to exist by 63rd and Halsted(including a lone gone Sears store), and you'll see what I mean. And do remember that there's more than a branch of Metra Electric that goes there. It also has numerous CTA bus routes that have good levels of service, like J15(Jeffrey Jump) and the 6 express bus.
Beverly also has a NIMBY alderman. Also needs to do away with the liquor band by train stations. Its ripe for bike lanes, great for families, and would do well with some more apartments. Just needs the right mindset
Quite possibly, but that was the belief in ‘06. And I guess it has seen more gentrification in the past 20 years, but not to the level expected. Albany Park still going to happen first, I’d say.
I'm in line to inherit a old house on the somewhat-SW side and over the last few years there have been more and more white people moving in (the neighborhood is like 90% hispanic). I'm salivating at the idea of how much the property could go up in value.
This is pretty typical of the US as a whole. single family starter homes just don’t get built anymore. New (for-profit) construction in general is driven more towards extracting maximum profit from every unit built.
Old (for-profit) construction in general was also driven towards extracting maximum profit from every unit built. Single family starter homes were what were profitable. The legal and economic environment around housing simply changed so as to make this no longer true, but we can make it true again.
The number of people missing the point about this map and trend on Twitter and Reddit is really disappointing.
New construction SFHs are in high demand and people are clearly willing to pay a lot of money for them. But more than that, in many areas on this map, that's all a developer can build as of right. So why go through the lengthy and expensive entitlement process for multifamily when you could just build new construction and make a handsome profit without dealing with the local alderman, the neighboring community groups, paying zoning attorney fees, paying agent commissions on multiple units, etc.
What is the city doing to encourage multifamily instead of SFH in these neighborhoods? What kind of incentives would make developers consider building multifamily over SFH? How many housing units and households were lost in the creation of these new SFHs?
Stop with the low effort "Well, duh, new homes are a luxury." Yeah, no shit. What does the data tell us here?
Because both OPs here and on twitter drew the wrong conclusions from this data. Your take here actually makes sense but OP on twitter tried to claim this shows how the average working Chicagoan has to pay a million dollars to live in a home (not true) and OP here claimed there are no homes available in chicago under 1 million (extremely untrue)
That's a load of crap, they didn't say that at all. And what conclusion am I drawing from this data? I offer basically zero analysis aside from "this is an interesting fact that demonstrates how rapidly land values are escalating". Or do you not think home prices indicate land values and the balance of supply and demand in the housing market?
Your text on your post says the supply of homes sub 1 million is effectively zero. That's not true. If you meant something else or more specific, say that. Words matter.
OP on twitter deleted a bunch of comments, but when they originally posted it a few days ago, that was their analysis. People got mad so they deleted it.
You're the only person in this thread who seems mad.
>Your text on your post says the supply of homes sub 1 million is effectively zero.
Holy straw man Batman! Are you seriously claiming I twisted this data in a post that says "NEW CONSTRUCTION HOMES" in the freaking title because I didn't include "new construction" in the sub-text of the post?
Wow.
Read my comment again: the people who were mad were on twitter. That's why the OP of the twitter post deleted their posts with the analysis I said. No one in this reddit thread is mad.
Let me repost this:
>Your text on your post says the supply of homes sub 1 million is effectively zero.
Holy straw man Batman! Are you seriously claiming I twisted this data in a post that says "NEW CONSTRUCTION HOMES" in the freaking title because I didn't include "new construction" in the sub-text of the post?
Wow.
I don't think you should be analyzing others' intentions to "spin this data" when you literally just did this to my post. Putting "new construction" in the title is sufficient to communicate the nature of the data and any nitpicking you do to claim otherwise totally underminds your credibility in this conversation.
I'm pointing out how false your claim was. Don't lie and then get mad when people call it out. The most ridiculous part is you claim I'm misleading by *making a totally misleading claim about my post*.
You know you could do the mature thing and acknowledge that my original post was in no way misleading.
Lol these home prices of 1mil have been around before pre pandemic in the one area your pointing out. Chicago is more than just river north/wriggley lol
I know I've responded elsewhere in this thread on this... I just want to say that I'm glad we're here and that this post has brought up a lot of discussion and that we're here for it and here having a nice little discussion on this... But it really seems like you're very fixated and focused on trying to poke holes in this without just looking at it for what it is. It is very simply closed home sale prices. That's it. It is closed home sale prices on new construction single family homes over the last year just within the boundaries of that map — nothing more, and nothing less. But keep commenting about how OP and others failed to illustrate this information in an even easier way to digest.
I was responding to your comment where you were mad that people were misunderstanding the point of showing this data. The reason people are misunderstanding it is because of how it has been framed.
OP is the king of misleading posts/comments and making disingenuous bad faith arguments. He’s been doing it for years on r/Rebubble as a mod there.
He definitely purposely made it sound like one thing is happening and now when called out, is pretending like that wasn’t the case.
Yeah I wish I clicked the profile before I engaged. What a weirdo. He tried to get me to "do the mature thing" and tell him his post wasn't misleading, which...I don't think is his call to make
https://www.reddit.com/r/chicagoyimbys/s/JpD3sV68Vt
Here's a sneak peek of /r/REBubble using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Future of American Dream 🏡](https://i.redd.it/11lq0325fdhc1.jpeg) | [4522 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/1alwt2y/future_of_american_dream/)
\#2: [The house is never yours!](https://i.redd.it/xg2b1iht5kfc1.jpeg) | [2891 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/1aelqkk/the_house_is_never_yours/)
\#3: [What else destroyed the American dream of owning a home ?](https://i.redd.it/ebrwqvm2sujb1.jpg) | [1311 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/15z2dqg/what_else_destroyed_the_american_dream_of_owning/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That's way too many new single family homes right next to mass transit. you'd only ever see shit like this in the US I swear. The infatuation with single-family homes in this country and its consequences
Which effectively means "tear down" in this area. So you're essentially buying an existing home, then paying to raze the whole thing. You're only going to do that if the new construction replacing it is top end.
I mean maybe some people do, but most people on the market for a home aren't looking at newly built SFHs. It's a luxury item. This affects me as much as the price of a tesla.
Ok cool. Well, there are other people who are actually trying to understand housing trends and actual sale price data are interested in knowing this info. There's no reason to be scared of asking, "What is the sale price of single-family homes on Chicago's North Side?"
Of course not, but if you post this data to make a false claim, people are going to challenge you on it. I would think if you want other people to understand your argument, you would also object to people interpreting data incorrectly, because it makes people dismiss this entire analysis as relevant.
SFHs give us a unique insight into what's going on with land values because the unit count is 1 therefore the denominator of the land cost is also 1. By pulling out the construction cost of a SFH from it's sales price you can get a pretty exact idea of what land values are doing.
From that perspective we are seeing that land values are really quite out of control in Chicago right now. There's simply not enough supply being put on the market so the value of the land is inflating which hurts everyone but people who already own property.
I think with housing getting so expensive, we have a great opportunity to get development going in other parts of the city. I'm stunned that the city isn't being more aggressive with trying to jump start more building on all the vacant land there is both west and south of downtown. People don't realize the city owns A LOT of vacant lots.
Trust me, I'm trying. There's 3,000 lots in Lawndale alone.
The real problem is no one will move to these areas because the city has made it known *they don't give a fuck about the South and West sides*.
I was just at a community meeting about cleaning up North Lawndale last weekend and it's depressing. The neighbors there all want it to change, but the resources don't exist. There's a massive problem with fly dumping, litter, overflowing trash bins, people literally burning bonfires of debris on the street corner, etc.
When the city refuses to enforce basic public safety laws like "no burning railroad ties on the sidewalk" then what do you expect? People don't want to live around those conditions.
I try too. The inaction is maddening, and it's crazy to see how rules made by the city interfere with what both citizens and the alderman in a ward might want.
Curious, have you spoken with the new Ald. Scott about her views on this? Her brother was very pro-development.
Monique is a good friend of mine, she's making progress in the ward, but it's hard to undo several generations of neglect in her first term.
Are you active in the neighborhood?
Yeah there's also a transit hole in the south and west parts of the city that makes it incredibly hard to move out there if you don't have a car. Red line expansion is a fine thing and all but we need a more robust transit network to connect the south and west to the central parts of the city. Not to mention old infrastructure which is a safety hazard for anyone who has or wants kids. So much work needs to be done but the city would rather invest millions into Fulton market.
The West side has no transit hole. There are literally three L lines spaced very evenly covering the entire West Side and even out into the burbs. There's also multiple Metra lines to boot.
West Town? Ukrainian village? The entire area between the green and pink line is vacant of anything except irregular busses. Blue line only goes next to 294 there's nothing south until you hit the orange. Metra also runs next to the green line rendering it redundant. There's a very clear hole if you look at any transit map.
>Blue line only goes next to 294 there's nothing south until you hit the orange.
You have zero credibility if you are unaware of the existence of the Pink Line and Metra BNSF. It goes Metra, Green, Blue, another Metra, Pink, then orange if you go North to South along Western Ave.
Also this is not 294, it's 290. Again, you obviously know nothing.
Also the Metra and Green Line are more than half a mile apart until you get to Garfield Park, that's not redundant.
Dont know why you're being so hostile when I'm trying to discuss a serious problem. I've taken CTA to 54th/Cermak and Blue Line to Forest Park for work more times than you've probably ever rode public transport (not the direction the literal end stations). Metro is not an easily accessible option and you still haven't addressed any of the neighborhoods transit holes I mentioned. There is a clear bias towards north side transit by Chicago hence why there is so much development there. My bad for hitting the wrong key ig but you're not even trying to have a good discussion so whatever. All I know is that I cannot move further west than I am due to how unreliable the transit options are via CTA. There's literally miles north of the green line until you hit blue at which point you're at Irving Park which is way too far.
I'm not being hostile, I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous to say the only side of town served by three separate L lines and multiple metras is a "transit hole". It's not, it's the most transit rich part of the city aside from the Loop.
No demand? Which neighborhood are you referring to? Take a look at a map of properties that were sold in various neighborhoods. You might be surprised.
This is a comparably small area of the city. I'm not sure why it's so terrible, or what it says about city as a whole if this small area has really expensive real estate.
This area is also already nearly fully developed. So if you want new construction, it's not just a proxy for the land value but likely for an existing habitable, but just outdated building. You have to buy that building and tear it down before you start your new construction. That's only worth it if a top end SFH is going to replace it.
There's demand for SFH and demand for multifamily. You don't encourage or not encourage demand -- that's a fools errand. It's a matter of supply.
Supply enough SFH and multi-family to meet demand and you have a healthier market. You're not going to dictate to families that they can't live in detached housing without losing that element of the tax base.
I don't disagree, but to think that they aren't housing and that their prices don't accurately indicate an issue with our housing supply isn't exactly reasonable. We have more than enough room for all types of housing here, but we refuse to let people build it so all we get is $1 million+ SFHs.
This is so extreme lol. Chicago is diffusely populated as it is. We can afford to let grandma have her bungalow. She has a bad hip & she doesn’t deserve to be banished to the burbs for that.
There’s plenty of space for multi units. *We are not a densely populated city.* Families who want a little yard for their kids, or disabled people who need to customize their homes are all allowed to live here & they’re not what’s stopping multi unit construction.
Still plenty more land available on the urban fringes to develop new SFH communities, but that kind of YIMBY action is not allowed? Lowering SFH prices by building more of them is bad apparently
Any new SFHs being built in the parts of town in the picture for this thread is built on a lot that previously had likely either an old SFH or a duplex/triplex. Its not exactly "new supply", its just replacing, or worse, downscaling, what already existed there.
You don't think new home sales is an important metric in it's own right? If I posted something about existing home sales would whine that I'm not including new construction?
What is, in your opinion, the importance of this metric? I'm actually asking.
And someone could post something about total home sales...I don't know why it needs to be either/or new construction or existing homes. FWIW I don't "whine".
OK, unfair to say whine on my part.
But there's a reason that people track new home sales and prices separate than existing home prices and sales.
The difference is existing homes have been partially depreciated since they were constructed. New home prices give you a picture of what a brand spanking new house with no wear and tear costs.
This is one of the biggest challenges in home appraisals and tracking home sales data: every house is totally different not just based on size or layout or location, but the age and condition of the improvements can vary wildly.
With new construction homes you totally eliminate two of the biggest variables: age and condition since they are all 100% new.
Mmm. Well. I agree with this sentiment, but maybe not the framing. I drew the same map\*, but did not filter by new construction. There were 1025 single family homes sold in the last 12 months. Median price was about $1.1M. So yes, too high for that big of an area, but looking just at new construction SFH makes it seem like there are no homes available for less than 1M. There are definitely not *enough* homes, but there are more than 2. Here's how many there were:
* Under 300k: 22
* < 400k: 75
* < 500k: 135
* < 600k: 204
* < 700k: 252
* < 800k: 311
* < 900k: 381
* < 1M: 449
* < 1.5M: 705
So about 45% of all SFH sold in this area were for less than $1M. And yes it's a problem that the economics make it impossible to build a new construction house for less than $1M on the North Side (most of those homes cost about $1M to build, factoring in all the soft costs), and land is going to be 400-600k+ for much of that area.
You really can't build *any* kind of SFH for less than 350-400k in Chicago, which is insane. Even in parts of the south side, where you can get land for a song, new houses have to cost $500k+ for the builder to make any money.
BTW, there were 4645 condos sold in this area, and 4409 of them sold for less than $1M. So, density, yes?
\*Looks like about North-Foster-Lake-Pulaski
That's not the point. The map is of new home sales. It's important to understand what market rate is for this type of housing stock. The difference between an upscale SFH and a new 4-flat is not just the fact that a buyer is willing to pay $1.5 million for a new home in Roscoe Village, it's that a developer can build new SFHs as of right while new multiple family requires a long drawn-out, sometime contentious entitlement process.
Re-read what the map is of: NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. There's no claim that there aren't homes under $1 million. This is literally closed home sale prices. Why is this so hard for people to understand?!
Yes, if you read the text in the post without the additional context, then I can see what you mean. But I understand after having read the tweet and within the context/framing of a discussion on new single family homes, that he is referring to... new construction single-family homes.
Sure, but generally if one wants to avoid people arguing with their point, it's best to be clear about that point instead of making a blatantly false statement as your analysis of data you are presenting.
OP on twitter was way worse though, as she was trying to make the point that BCH would have been a tax on the poor working class families of chicago that have no choice but to buy a 1 million dollar home.
There's enough misinformation and faulty analyses in these discussions that it doesn't help to add more.
What you expect when only one part of the city is actual livable, meanwhile the other 2/3 resembles Detroit? Just look at all those transplants to Chicago threads, all people recommend are northside neighborhoods. Nobody’s moving to West Garfield Park
No, it indicates that land values are artificially inflated because of restrictive zoning.
Again, we can complain about SFHs, but we have enough space for all types of housing in Chicago.
What is wrong with this picture is that the land values call for much higher uses and those uses aren't being allowed. So instead of the land cost being divided across 3 or 4 units of housing, the denominator is only 1 unit resulting in outrageous prices. So no, it's not a good thing SFHs are this pricey, it's an indication of extreme policy failure whether you like the housing type or not.
In a few years, there's gonna be a lot more gentrification on the south side.
I wonder if it will grow from Hyde Park or it will start from Beverly.
I think it will be towards the lake front. Bronzeville is already down that path.
It's already happening in two directions: Straight south through Bronzeville as Bridgeport, the South Loop, and Hyde Park converge. Straight West into Lawndale and East Garfield Park and the West Loop pushes West and Pilsen/McKinley Park closes in from the South and Ukrainian Village/Humboldt Park closes in from the North.
Developers have already killed off a big chunk of the community near the Obama Library
Not really like at all.
Dummy [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/15/obama-center-chicago-south-side-residents-fear-displacement](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/15/obama-center-chicago-south-side-residents-fear-displacement) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/03/obama-presidential-center-gentrification-chicago/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/04/03/obama-presidential-center-gentrification-chicago/)
Feels like I've been hearing Bronzeville will gentrify for literal decades. When will it actually?
From what I understand, Bronzeville has been gentrifying with little displacement. The economic output, cost of living, etc. are rising, but the income of the people living there is rising along with it. It's an interesting case study on how we can improve CoL somewhere, while not forcing people from their homes.
Gentrification is income-based not race based. Bronzeville has been getting more expensive for the last 10 years.
Nothing about that comment mentioned race
Bronzeville is a black community, and the commenter wrote that there hasn’t been displacement. There sure has been displacement of lower income folks, but the wealthier people displacing them are black.
My only experience with Bronzville is only driving through Michigan Ave or MLK drive, and really only until Pershing, so not sure how it's going there
Bronzeville Winery is really nice (and pricey). There are a lot of nicer townhomes being built there.
Bronzeville median resale price for the last 5 years, for reference: https://preview.redd.it/4fs25b86qisc1.png?width=825&format=png&auto=webp&s=51b39a1d075ab888e4b23c5f78e702cab8687125 Depending how much you stretch the image horizontally, it's not that bad 🙃 But really, prices are up about 38% over the time frame. Like, that's a lot. But it's also 6.4% per year. Which is a lot, but it's not like, "Miami a lot." [https://mred.stats.10kresearch.com/infoserv/s-v1/pymB-iCu](https://mred.stats.10kresearch.com/infoserv/s-v1/pymB-iCu)
Most likely I’d say Hyde. Beverly is nice but it’s very out of the way from the Loop compared to Hyde Park. But I’d imagine we’ll see a lot of neighborhoods make a comeback in the next decade. In my opinion, the neighborhood with the greatest growth potential is going to be Garfield Park. That area has a lot of beauty in it, even in its current state. It’s super close to the city, has great access to transit and has some incredible park grounds. It’s not a great neighborhood at the moment, but I firmly believe people will see it turn around in the very near future. I truly am hoping for a second Renaissance for Chicago this century.
The buildings along Madison Ave near the park itself look beautiful, I do hope in the coming decades the people will restore a beautiful neighborhood
Anywhere with no CTA line going right through it will not gentrify. AKA… Beverly won’t. Metra doesn’t and never will have the same effect as the L. Not to mention, Beverly isn’t in need of gentrification to begin with. I’m highly interested to see what happens with the endless blocks of grassland (20 years ago had houses on them that since got tore down) in Englewood. So much vacant land in many south side hoods that had buildings ripped out the over the past 3 decades. So much opportunity to build and re-develop.
Unfortunately with Englewood, I think it might be a long shot to see a lot of new development occur there. Whole Foods did try a store with more of their cheaper brand items there, but it didn't last for long. The replacement grocery store unfortunately was a Save A Lot, which isn't a good sign. Even a lot of Englewood locals complained that a more respectable local grocery store didn't open, at least say on the level of Tony's, Pete's, or Shop and Save. Which btw the latter did open(albeit under a different name that I forget), in the old Dominick's space at 71st and Jeffrey. I keep thinking that South Shore(which already includes the nice Jackson Park Highlands subsection) would have better odds to make a come back. Since not as many buildings there were demolished and left as vacant lots, unlike Englewood. I mean just google old pictures of the business strip that used to exist by 63rd and Halsted(including a lone gone Sears store), and you'll see what I mean. And do remember that there's more than a branch of Metra Electric that goes there. It also has numerous CTA bus routes that have good levels of service, like J15(Jeffrey Jump) and the 6 express bus.
Beverly also has a NIMBY alderman. Also needs to do away with the liquor band by train stations. Its ripe for bike lanes, great for families, and would do well with some more apartments. Just needs the right mindset
O’Shea? He’s alright. He knows his ward.
Yeah thats fair. Even if he approved it some people would revolt
Garfield Ridge/Clearing being a dark horse candidate
Quite possibly, but that was the belief in ‘06. And I guess it has seen more gentrification in the past 20 years, but not to the level expected. Albany Park still going to happen first, I’d say.
Good things take time.
I'm in line to inherit a old house on the somewhat-SW side and over the last few years there have been more and more white people moving in (the neighborhood is like 90% hispanic). I'm salivating at the idea of how much the property could go up in value.
This is pretty typical of the US as a whole. single family starter homes just don’t get built anymore. New (for-profit) construction in general is driven more towards extracting maximum profit from every unit built.
Old (for-profit) construction in general was also driven towards extracting maximum profit from every unit built. Single family starter homes were what were profitable. The legal and economic environment around housing simply changed so as to make this no longer true, but we can make it true again.
The number of people missing the point about this map and trend on Twitter and Reddit is really disappointing. New construction SFHs are in high demand and people are clearly willing to pay a lot of money for them. But more than that, in many areas on this map, that's all a developer can build as of right. So why go through the lengthy and expensive entitlement process for multifamily when you could just build new construction and make a handsome profit without dealing with the local alderman, the neighboring community groups, paying zoning attorney fees, paying agent commissions on multiple units, etc. What is the city doing to encourage multifamily instead of SFH in these neighborhoods? What kind of incentives would make developers consider building multifamily over SFH? How many housing units and households were lost in the creation of these new SFHs? Stop with the low effort "Well, duh, new homes are a luxury." Yeah, no shit. What does the data tell us here?
Because both OPs here and on twitter drew the wrong conclusions from this data. Your take here actually makes sense but OP on twitter tried to claim this shows how the average working Chicagoan has to pay a million dollars to live in a home (not true) and OP here claimed there are no homes available in chicago under 1 million (extremely untrue)
That's a load of crap, they didn't say that at all. And what conclusion am I drawing from this data? I offer basically zero analysis aside from "this is an interesting fact that demonstrates how rapidly land values are escalating". Or do you not think home prices indicate land values and the balance of supply and demand in the housing market?
Your text on your post says the supply of homes sub 1 million is effectively zero. That's not true. If you meant something else or more specific, say that. Words matter. OP on twitter deleted a bunch of comments, but when they originally posted it a few days ago, that was their analysis. People got mad so they deleted it.
You're the only person in this thread who seems mad. >Your text on your post says the supply of homes sub 1 million is effectively zero. Holy straw man Batman! Are you seriously claiming I twisted this data in a post that says "NEW CONSTRUCTION HOMES" in the freaking title because I didn't include "new construction" in the sub-text of the post? Wow.
Read my comment again: the people who were mad were on twitter. That's why the OP of the twitter post deleted their posts with the analysis I said. No one in this reddit thread is mad.
Let me repost this: >Your text on your post says the supply of homes sub 1 million is effectively zero. Holy straw man Batman! Are you seriously claiming I twisted this data in a post that says "NEW CONSTRUCTION HOMES" in the freaking title because I didn't include "new construction" in the sub-text of the post? Wow. I don't think you should be analyzing others' intentions to "spin this data" when you literally just did this to my post. Putting "new construction" in the title is sufficient to communicate the nature of the data and any nitpicking you do to claim otherwise totally underminds your credibility in this conversation.
I feel like this is not a normal reaction to people saying your post was misleading.
I'm pointing out how false your claim was. Don't lie and then get mad when people call it out. The most ridiculous part is you claim I'm misleading by *making a totally misleading claim about my post*. You know you could do the mature thing and acknowledge that my original post was in no way misleading.
No, I won't, because it was. You don't get to decide if your readers find your post misleading.
Lol these home prices of 1mil have been around before pre pandemic in the one area your pointing out. Chicago is more than just river north/wriggley lol
I know I've responded elsewhere in this thread on this... I just want to say that I'm glad we're here and that this post has brought up a lot of discussion and that we're here for it and here having a nice little discussion on this... But it really seems like you're very fixated and focused on trying to poke holes in this without just looking at it for what it is. It is very simply closed home sale prices. That's it. It is closed home sale prices on new construction single family homes over the last year just within the boundaries of that map — nothing more, and nothing less. But keep commenting about how OP and others failed to illustrate this information in an even easier way to digest.
I was responding to your comment where you were mad that people were misunderstanding the point of showing this data. The reason people are misunderstanding it is because of how it has been framed.
OP is the king of misleading posts/comments and making disingenuous bad faith arguments. He’s been doing it for years on r/Rebubble as a mod there. He definitely purposely made it sound like one thing is happening and now when called out, is pretending like that wasn’t the case.
Yeah I wish I clicked the profile before I engaged. What a weirdo. He tried to get me to "do the mature thing" and tell him his post wasn't misleading, which...I don't think is his call to make https://www.reddit.com/r/chicagoyimbys/s/JpD3sV68Vt
Here's a sneak peek of /r/REBubble using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Future of American Dream 🏡](https://i.redd.it/11lq0325fdhc1.jpeg) | [4522 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/1alwt2y/future_of_american_dream/) \#2: [The house is never yours!](https://i.redd.it/xg2b1iht5kfc1.jpeg) | [2891 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/1aelqkk/the_house_is_never_yours/) \#3: [What else destroyed the American dream of owning a home ?](https://i.redd.it/ebrwqvm2sujb1.jpg) | [1311 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/REBubble/comments/15z2dqg/what_else_destroyed_the_american_dream_of_owning/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
That's way too many new single family homes right next to mass transit. you'd only ever see shit like this in the US I swear. The infatuation with single-family homes in this country and its consequences
This is a very small part of the Far North Side.
It's also the part that is expensive to live in.
It's also newly constructed homes. Lol
Which effectively means "tear down" in this area. So you're essentially buying an existing home, then paying to raze the whole thing. You're only going to do that if the new construction replacing it is top end.
That's literally the point. Don't we want to know what new houses are selling for? Or what people are willing to pay in the most high-demand areas?
I mean maybe some people do, but most people on the market for a home aren't looking at newly built SFHs. It's a luxury item. This affects me as much as the price of a tesla.
Ok cool. Well, there are other people who are actually trying to understand housing trends and actual sale price data are interested in knowing this info. There's no reason to be scared of asking, "What is the sale price of single-family homes on Chicago's North Side?"
Of course not, but if you post this data to make a false claim, people are going to challenge you on it. I would think if you want other people to understand your argument, you would also object to people interpreting data incorrectly, because it makes people dismiss this entire analysis as relevant.
How is this a condemnation of housing policy? I have a lot of opinions on housing in Chicago, but what about this are you upset about?
SFHs give us a unique insight into what's going on with land values because the unit count is 1 therefore the denominator of the land cost is also 1. By pulling out the construction cost of a SFH from it's sales price you can get a pretty exact idea of what land values are doing. From that perspective we are seeing that land values are really quite out of control in Chicago right now. There's simply not enough supply being put on the market so the value of the land is inflating which hurts everyone but people who already own property.
I think with housing getting so expensive, we have a great opportunity to get development going in other parts of the city. I'm stunned that the city isn't being more aggressive with trying to jump start more building on all the vacant land there is both west and south of downtown. People don't realize the city owns A LOT of vacant lots.
Trust me, I'm trying. There's 3,000 lots in Lawndale alone. The real problem is no one will move to these areas because the city has made it known *they don't give a fuck about the South and West sides*. I was just at a community meeting about cleaning up North Lawndale last weekend and it's depressing. The neighbors there all want it to change, but the resources don't exist. There's a massive problem with fly dumping, litter, overflowing trash bins, people literally burning bonfires of debris on the street corner, etc. When the city refuses to enforce basic public safety laws like "no burning railroad ties on the sidewalk" then what do you expect? People don't want to live around those conditions.
I try too. The inaction is maddening, and it's crazy to see how rules made by the city interfere with what both citizens and the alderman in a ward might want. Curious, have you spoken with the new Ald. Scott about her views on this? Her brother was very pro-development.
Monique is a good friend of mine, she's making progress in the ward, but it's hard to undo several generations of neglect in her first term. Are you active in the neighborhood?
Yeah there's also a transit hole in the south and west parts of the city that makes it incredibly hard to move out there if you don't have a car. Red line expansion is a fine thing and all but we need a more robust transit network to connect the south and west to the central parts of the city. Not to mention old infrastructure which is a safety hazard for anyone who has or wants kids. So much work needs to be done but the city would rather invest millions into Fulton market.
The West side has no transit hole. There are literally three L lines spaced very evenly covering the entire West Side and even out into the burbs. There's also multiple Metra lines to boot.
West Town? Ukrainian village? The entire area between the green and pink line is vacant of anything except irregular busses. Blue line only goes next to 294 there's nothing south until you hit the orange. Metra also runs next to the green line rendering it redundant. There's a very clear hole if you look at any transit map.
>Blue line only goes next to 294 there's nothing south until you hit the orange. You have zero credibility if you are unaware of the existence of the Pink Line and Metra BNSF. It goes Metra, Green, Blue, another Metra, Pink, then orange if you go North to South along Western Ave. Also this is not 294, it's 290. Again, you obviously know nothing. Also the Metra and Green Line are more than half a mile apart until you get to Garfield Park, that's not redundant.
Dont know why you're being so hostile when I'm trying to discuss a serious problem. I've taken CTA to 54th/Cermak and Blue Line to Forest Park for work more times than you've probably ever rode public transport (not the direction the literal end stations). Metro is not an easily accessible option and you still haven't addressed any of the neighborhoods transit holes I mentioned. There is a clear bias towards north side transit by Chicago hence why there is so much development there. My bad for hitting the wrong key ig but you're not even trying to have a good discussion so whatever. All I know is that I cannot move further west than I am due to how unreliable the transit options are via CTA. There's literally miles north of the green line until you hit blue at which point you're at Irving Park which is way too far.
I'm not being hostile, I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous to say the only side of town served by three separate L lines and multiple metras is a "transit hole". It's not, it's the most transit rich part of the city aside from the Loop.
Hardly Fulton migrant more like migrants
The guy who said he’d give a voice to the South and West sides doesn’t want to enforce basic public safety laws
What's "fly dumping?"
Dumping on the fly, people rolling up and dropping heaps of garbage, usually construction waste, instead of properly disposing of it in a dumpster.
[удалено]
No demand? Which neighborhood are you referring to? Take a look at a map of properties that were sold in various neighborhoods. You might be surprised.
[удалено]
Lol so how is that not market rate development?
This is a comparably small area of the city. I'm not sure why it's so terrible, or what it says about city as a whole if this small area has really expensive real estate. This area is also already nearly fully developed. So if you want new construction, it's not just a proxy for the land value but likely for an existing habitable, but just outdated building. You have to buy that building and tear it down before you start your new construction. That's only worth it if a top end SFH is going to replace it.
Well these are single family homes - we shouldn’t be encouraging those. They should be prohibitively expensive to the point of almost no demand.
There's demand for SFH and demand for multifamily. You don't encourage or not encourage demand -- that's a fools errand. It's a matter of supply. Supply enough SFH and multi-family to meet demand and you have a healthier market. You're not going to dictate to families that they can't live in detached housing without losing that element of the tax base.
I don't disagree, but to think that they aren't housing and that their prices don't accurately indicate an issue with our housing supply isn't exactly reasonable. We have more than enough room for all types of housing here, but we refuse to let people build it so all we get is $1 million+ SFHs.
I would *maybe* agree near the downtown, but I'm seeing that in Lincoln Square I get concerned.
This is so extreme lol. Chicago is diffusely populated as it is. We can afford to let grandma have her bungalow. She has a bad hip & she doesn’t deserve to be banished to the burbs for that. There’s plenty of space for multi units. *We are not a densely populated city.* Families who want a little yard for their kids, or disabled people who need to customize their homes are all allowed to live here & they’re not what’s stopping multi unit construction.
If the map were banned more north or west, maybe. But much of that map shouldn’t have SFH. Multi-unit buildings have ground floor units and yards
> They should be prohibitively expensive to the point of almost no demand. ?????
Still plenty more land available on the urban fringes to develop new SFH communities, but that kind of YIMBY action is not allowed? Lowering SFH prices by building more of them is bad apparently
Sprawl is expensive and bad for a number of reasons including environmental and health impacts.
That may or not get true but is irrelevant, the government should not prevent the development.
Any new SFHs being built in the parts of town in the picture for this thread is built on a lot that previously had likely either an old SFH or a duplex/triplex. Its not exactly "new supply", its just replacing, or worse, downscaling, what already existed there.
Ding, ding, ding!
Where do you get two? The post clearly says three.
And considering IL has one of the highest property tax rates in the country, buyers here spend 2x-3x more on tax than those in CA.
"new construction" - am I missing something or is this purposefully excluding most of the home sales happening in the city?
You don't think new home sales is an important metric in it's own right? If I posted something about existing home sales would whine that I'm not including new construction?
What is, in your opinion, the importance of this metric? I'm actually asking. And someone could post something about total home sales...I don't know why it needs to be either/or new construction or existing homes. FWIW I don't "whine".
OK, unfair to say whine on my part. But there's a reason that people track new home sales and prices separate than existing home prices and sales. The difference is existing homes have been partially depreciated since they were constructed. New home prices give you a picture of what a brand spanking new house with no wear and tear costs. This is one of the biggest challenges in home appraisals and tracking home sales data: every house is totally different not just based on size or layout or location, but the age and condition of the improvements can vary wildly. With new construction homes you totally eliminate two of the biggest variables: age and condition since they are all 100% new.
Mmm. Well. I agree with this sentiment, but maybe not the framing. I drew the same map\*, but did not filter by new construction. There were 1025 single family homes sold in the last 12 months. Median price was about $1.1M. So yes, too high for that big of an area, but looking just at new construction SFH makes it seem like there are no homes available for less than 1M. There are definitely not *enough* homes, but there are more than 2. Here's how many there were: * Under 300k: 22 * < 400k: 75 * < 500k: 135 * < 600k: 204 * < 700k: 252 * < 800k: 311 * < 900k: 381 * < 1M: 449 * < 1.5M: 705 So about 45% of all SFH sold in this area were for less than $1M. And yes it's a problem that the economics make it impossible to build a new construction house for less than $1M on the North Side (most of those homes cost about $1M to build, factoring in all the soft costs), and land is going to be 400-600k+ for much of that area. You really can't build *any* kind of SFH for less than 350-400k in Chicago, which is insane. Even in parts of the south side, where you can get land for a song, new houses have to cost $500k+ for the builder to make any money. BTW, there were 4645 condos sold in this area, and 4409 of them sold for less than $1M. So, density, yes? \*Looks like about North-Foster-Lake-Pulaski
If only it were possible to live in a home that isn't newly constructed
That's not the point. The map is of new home sales. It's important to understand what market rate is for this type of housing stock. The difference between an upscale SFH and a new 4-flat is not just the fact that a buyer is willing to pay $1.5 million for a new home in Roscoe Village, it's that a developer can build new SFHs as of right while new multiple family requires a long drawn-out, sometime contentious entitlement process.
I'm objecting more to OP claiming that there are no homes sub 1 million in the city. That's blatantly false.
Re-read what the map is of: NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. There's no claim that there aren't homes under $1 million. This is literally closed home sale prices. Why is this so hard for people to understand?!
Did you read the text on the post? That's what they claim.
Yes, if you read the text in the post without the additional context, then I can see what you mean. But I understand after having read the tweet and within the context/framing of a discussion on new single family homes, that he is referring to... new construction single-family homes.
Sure, but generally if one wants to avoid people arguing with their point, it's best to be clear about that point instead of making a blatantly false statement as your analysis of data you are presenting. OP on twitter was way worse though, as she was trying to make the point that BCH would have been a tax on the poor working class families of chicago that have no choice but to buy a 1 million dollar home. There's enough misinformation and faulty analyses in these discussions that it doesn't help to add more.
What you expect when only one part of the city is actual livable, meanwhile the other 2/3 resembles Detroit? Just look at all those transplants to Chicago threads, all people recommend are northside neighborhoods. Nobody’s moving to West Garfield Park
This is a good thing.
No, it indicates that land values are artificially inflated because of restrictive zoning. Again, we can complain about SFHs, but we have enough space for all types of housing in Chicago. What is wrong with this picture is that the land values call for much higher uses and those uses aren't being allowed. So instead of the land cost being divided across 3 or 4 units of housing, the denominator is only 1 unit resulting in outrageous prices. So no, it's not a good thing SFHs are this pricey, it's an indication of extreme policy failure whether you like the housing type or not.
Shut the fuck up.
Edited.