
Chicago Is America's Last Remaining Affordable Skyscraper City - ayanai
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20180711/OPINION/180719978/to-chicago-with-love-emanuel-is-a-housing-policy-pioneer
======
ChicagoDave
Chicago is the magic kingdom of all cities. The lakefront, transportation
systems, forest preserves, museums, restaurants, theater, activities, and good
old Midwestern common sense provide a combination of cosmopolitan and blue
collar flavor.

I can't count how many people have moved here and commented that they were
shocked how easygoing people were and making long-lasting friendships was
easier than they'd ever imagined.

Even so, the Bears still suck. Go Pack Go!

~~~
pducks32
You're making me miss my hometown. Everything there is just amazing, I love
the city and the people in it. The people are so kind and the transportation
is stellar, and you can listen to Fred & Angi on your way to work.

~~~
psweber
Hey, I can help with your home sickness.

It's brutal winter here for 8 months followed by a manic, hot four months of
summer. No spring or fall. It takes two hours to get to anything that could
reasonably be called nature. The people are great, but their main form of
socializing is heavy drinking. It's cold? Let's drink about it. It's hot?
Let's drink about it.

It's great, but no city is perfect.

~~~
ChicagoDave
The cold keeps bug size small, we don't have snakes or deadly spiders, and the
change of seasons invigorates the mind.

~~~
mikestew
We don't have poisonous snakes or spiders where I live, and the bugs are few
despite rarely getting below freezing. But it rains all the time in Seattle.
And the volcanoes; third one that's blown up this week. Stay away, we have
other things that will kill you beside bugs and reptiles.

------
RubenSandwich
I'm going to dispute this claim. Pittsburgh, PA has skyscrapers[1], defined as
any building with or over 40 floors, and is more affordable then Chicago[2].
In fact Atlanta, GA also fits in this category as well.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Pittsburgh)

[2] [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-
living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=United+States&city1=Chicago%2C+IL&city2=Pittsburgh%2C+PA&tracking=getDispatchComparison)

~~~
mactintyre
According to your source (Wikipedia), Chicago has around 78 buildings over 550
feet. Pittsburgh has 19 and Atlanta has 16.

So the article is right and Chicago is still in a league of its own in that
regard.

~~~
wuliwong
The article specifically mentions Boston, San Francisco, Washington and New
York as other skyscraper cities. I think their "definition" of skyscraper city
is a more about density than just the number of 40+ story buildings.

I think possibly the only legit "skyscraper city" that has been left out
according to the article's "definition" would be Philadelphia which is
affordable still.

~~~
cafard
Wikipedia doesn't show anything in Washington, DC, higher than 15 stories, for
what that's worth. I certainly have never thought of it as a "skyscraper
city".

~~~
jhbadger
The urban area of DC is much larger than literal Washington DC and many places
there that are technically suburbs certainly _do_ have skyscrapers. For
example, "Crystal City", which is technically in Virginia but functionally
part of DC.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_City,_Arlington,_Virgi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_City,_Arlington,_Virginia)

------
remyp
I've lived in Chicago for nearly 10 years and will continue preaching its
advantages to anyone who will listen.

Crime isn't as big a problem as people think it is (it's isolated to a few
long-disadvantaged neighborhoods), it's affordable, cars are optional, and we
have two airports to escape the winter weather.

~~~
hellofunk
I tried living in Chicago without a car… I wouldn’t say it is as optional as
you suggest.

~~~
snark42
> I tried living in Chicago without a car

Really depends on where you live and want to be. This is true everywhere (NYC,
SF, Seattle, etc.)

~~~
hellofunk
I would definitely not put NYC and Chicago in the same category for no-car
friendliness.

I spent many years in NYC and only knew 1 person who owned a car.

By contrast, when I lived in Chicago, _I_ was the only person _without_ a car.

------
dreamcompiler
I have only two problems with Chicago:

1\. Winter

2\. It's in Illinois. Which will take a century to dig itself out of a century
of being the most corrupt state government in the US.

~~~
falcolas
Lake effects winters are nothing to scoff at. Cold temperatures, wind, and
excessive snow/freezing rain make for some really miserable times.

~~~
m0rose
Sitting here in the middle of a heatwave, I have to ask: are they really that
bad when you can just add warm-weather clothing? Or when even just moving will
generate some heat? I've heard in Wisconsin you have to breathe a certain way
to warm the air before it gets to your lungs, so maybe that's the problem?
I've only lived in hot climates, so I have no concept of true cold. But with
how summers have been getting hotter and hotter lately, I'm tempted to make a
change.

~~~
derekp7
Overall it's really not as bad as people make it out to be. Of course I've
lived here all my life. There are periodic cold snaps where it gets way below
freezing, but typically it is in the 20's (F). The trick for winter is to
embrace it, and wear appropriate clothing. For snow removal you may need heavy
machinery (I just use a sleigh shovel, works great). For clothing, a good
flannel shirt with a vest jacket and hat goes a long way (keeps you from
getting too warm, and your body acclimates to the temps).

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
I lived in Chicago for several years and while the temperature and snow is a
lot more extreme in Chicago the winter is a hell of a lot more tolerable than
in Sweden where I live now. This is because where I live in Sweden is moderate
temperature wise compared to Chicago but the sun basically just never comes
out and you have constant cold rain for about 7 months. Chicago will
definitely see enough sunshine during the winter to keep you in reasonably
good spirits.

Also you forgot to mention for clothing to wear something under your jeans (my
trick was sweatpants) to protect yourself from that Chicago wind whipping
through them :)

------
logfromblammo
I like the feel of Chicago, but while living there, I couldn't stand the aura
of political irresponsibility. And the city is functionally bankrupt, even if
they can't declare it as a matter of law.

Nobody should move to a city that sells off its capital to pay for operating
expenses. Nobody who lives there should support any incumbent officer that
went along with it.

Touting affordability in an artificially restricted, un-enumerated class
sounds like starving vampires desperately advertising for new blood. Chicago's
nice, but it is surrounded by cities that are more attractive in terms of
fiscal stability: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Madison, Milwaukee, St. Louis,
Indianapolis. And Toronto, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati,
Louisville, and Pittsburgh are all in the same metropolitan aggregate, with
similar cultures.

I really want Chicago to be better than it is. I'm not sure that Illinois can
make it in the long run without amending the home rule exceptions for Chicago
out of its constitution. It gave the Chicago Political Machine (read _Boss_ by
Mike Royko, if you haven't already) its own playground and has driven a
gigantic wedge between the city and the entire rest of the state.

------
aantix
I love Chicago. I've visited most of the major cities in the U.S. and Chicago
is the only one that seems comparable to NYC's historic, big city feel.

~~~
wuliwong
I've only visited a couple times but I thought if it wasn't for the brutal
winters, it might be the best city in the US for me.

------
excalibur
I've never heard of this publication, I'm definitely going to pay them $5/mo
to read this one article.

Wait, no I'm not: [http://archive.is/pLqLI](http://archive.is/pLqLI)

~~~
npongratz
Title probably should also read, "To Chicago with love: Emanuel is a housing
policy pioneer".

Edit: ... versus the current, "Chicago Is America's Last Remaining Affordable
Skyscraper City"

~~~
wuliwong
I think they are A/Bing different headlines.

------
sailfast
Chicago's a great town, but honestly the taxes are a killer. I grew up in the
area and have a great deal of love for the place. Almost moved back after a
hiatus, until I calculated the percentage of my mortgage I would have to toss
away just to own a home.

Prices are often quite affordable but taxes can add 30-50% on top of the
monthlies which makes it quite hard to stomach. If you add in the fact that
taxes at the state level pretty much _have_ to increase I'm not sure the
affordability argument holds up in the medium term. I hope, however, that they
can start to fix some of those underlying issues.

------
debt
I've been saying this for _years_.

The math is pretty straightforward: as cost of living skyrockets in most
cities, any city that has the infrastructure and housing to accommodate large
numbers of people will win the race.

So for example, at this point San Francisco and the Bay Area are in fact
losing the race even though surrounding economy is booming; all because
housing is lacking and incredibly unaffordable and there's zero political will
to change it.

~~~
wuliwong
This is the opposite of what is happening if you look at the population
changes of their respective MSAs. Chicago's is barely growing and SF added an
estimated 9% to the population from 2010-2017. [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas)

~~~
debt
Growth will stagnant once the area reaches capacity. There is no political
will to relax zoning to increase housing inventory to meet the new demand as
existing residents are becoming very rich from their increased property
values.

------
bumholio
I'm not entirely sure I follow the logical argument: regulation is relaxed
along transit arteries, allowing developers to build and sell more units there
at market rates, thereby keeping the market prices in check; that's great.

But I would assume someone capable of paying market rates, typically still
owns a car. That car still needs a parking space, so even if the owner does
not use it for his daily commute, the presence of the car still has an impact.
I would furthermore assert that many if not most middle class citizens living
alongside good transit do not actually use it for work, because of the
complexity and inconvenience. It certainly seems that way and the article puts
forward no hard numbers.

So there should be a marginal decongestant effect from encouraging high
density in those areas, but the same rules could be applied everywhere for an
even stronger effect on market prices. The task of the mayor then becomes to
get transit to those newly developed areas and keep congestion down; not to
coax developers to build where transit is - they will do that by themselves
simply for the market premium transit options afford to their investments.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Chicago is definitely enough of a 'big city' that people choose to forego car
ownership.

I work in an office of developers, and people only tend to get a car once they
have kids, and then they only have one car for the family.

~~~
bigpicture
I own two parking spaces in a private garage on the edge of downtown - have
one car and rent the other space. 5 years ago, I could rent it for $300 per
month with a waiting list of people that want it. Today I am renting it for
$200 per month and it would take a week or so to find a new tenant. In that
time, my neighborhood has grown considerably and has become much more
expensive.

Multiple car ownership (or ownership at all) just isn't that desirable any
more and Chicago's relaxation of minimum parking requirements are very much
market-driven. Parking costs a lot of money to build and takes up a lot of
space in a building. Because there is nothing preventing a developer from
building more parking than required, he or she has the freedom to match market
demand.

There is a 50-floor, ~500-unit apartment building under construction in my
neighborhood that, due to its proximity to a train station, was required to
build exactly 0 parking spaces. The developer chose to build around 75.

------
rayiner
Don't worry, the government is hard at work putting a stop to affordability:
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/ct-re-
re...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/ct-re-rent-control-
in-illinois-20180125-story.html).

~~~
tomjakubowski
> In 2017, Chicago renters making the median income spent more than half their
> workdays earning enough money to cover the rent, according to an analysis
> from HotPads, an apartment search platform.

Seems more like living in Chicago is actually already unaffordable for most of
its residents, contrary to TFA.

------
Tehchops
Anything in that article address the highest effective tax rate in the
nation(and it's not close)?

------
robertc2017
Raised in Florida, live in Chicago (old town) with kids. Walk to work (and
drop off kids at school); 1.75 mile walk. Walk all year. Weather is fine above
-15, which it only hits a couple times every couple of year. No special
breathing required, though you need to bundle up. Rain is the worst to walk
in. We have a car, but used mostly for golf.

I think with restaurants, art scene, theater, and parks, it beats other
affordable cities (not sf, nyc) in my mind. But it doesn’t have the outdoors
fun of the West. If we leave, we may go very rural. Taxes and financial
trouble do make me a little nervous, as a property owner.

------
dredmorbius
Those property taxes may well be driving affordability.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)

------
bluedino
If they land HQ2, that will be the end of that.

------
Finnucane
There's another factor keeping housing prices down in Chicago, relative to
Boston, New York, etc.:

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-chicago-
population...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-chicago-population-
census-figures-20180523-story.html)

------
nwah1
Rents are always going to be high for any dense city, but lighter touch
regulations can make it less sprawled and car-centric. The transit-oriented
development policies mentioned do just that.

Donald Shoup is a transit scholar who has shown in detail the distorting
effects of mandatory minimum parking requirements.

------
locust101
What about Philadelphia? It has one of tallest skyscrapers in the US. Good
public transport and is pretty affordable even compared to Chicago.

------
arcaster
Austin has SkyScrapers... It's vastly more affordable than Chicago and has
superior weather...

------
Animats
Detroit? Cleveland?

~~~
ThirdFoundation
I am a big fan of Cleveland, but it isn't a "skyscraper city." There are a
number of mid-sized buildings and really nice downtown, but it hasn't grown
vertically like some other cities.

------
wuliwong
To avoid the paywall: [https://outline.com/tRbqhU](https://outline.com/tRbqhU)

------
pc86
Call me crazy but I think a publication named "Chicago Business" would
probably have a conflict of interest here.

Edit: Nevermind, it's an opinion piece, and behind a paywall to boot.

~~~
bunderbunder
But still, they may be biased. Chicago is affordable compared to many other
big cities, but getting from there to "last remaining" probably requires a
careful choice in the cutoff for what you'd call a "skyscraper city".

About an hour and a half north you'll find another American city that has
skyscrapers, and also has a cost of living that's somewhere between half and
3/4 of Chicago's.

~~~
maxsilver
> "About an hour and a half north you'll find another American city that has
> skyscrapers"

If Milwaukee counts as a "skyscraper city", then practically every city in the
US counts, and the term becomes mostly meaningless.

~~~
beefalo
It really should be "city livable without a car" because that is what really
separates Chicago from all of the other affordable midwestern cities.

~~~
dan-0
This is pretty much it. I haven't lived in Chicago, but have a lot of friends
from there and did some research while on my last jobs search. Putting
affordability next to availability of public transportation, Chicago is
probably the best mix I found. Unfortunately, as others had mentioned, the job
market couldn't make it worth it for me.

~~~
pc86
I've heard there are a lot of HFT/fintech firms in the Chicago area, which if
you've got the math/stats chops for it blows every non-FANG job out of the
water in terms of earnings potential.

------
sparrish
Only if you mean "Skyscraper city with lower prices because of higher crime".

~~~
remyp
I would encourage you to venture over to Wikipedia and sort the violent crime
rates per 100,000 people[1]. Chicago is 28th, behind Oakland, Houston,
Atlanta, and Miami.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

~~~
wuliwong
It is #8 on that list if you sort by homicide rate though. I'm not saying that
makes OP's comment accurate as they did just say "higher crime" and not
specifically homicide rate. But I do believe that blending murder rates with
property crime rates gets a little muddy. The only "skyscraper city" that the
article mentions that ranks higher in homicide rate is Washington D.C.

