Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's called the market: rich people want to live in Chicago, and middle class people find cheaper land/housing in the suburbs. Should the government pass laws or subsidize more housing? Fox News and the right love to rag on evil urban liberals, but they have no conservative solutions to any of the problems in American cities.
Yes the government should pass laws, or more accurately repeal existing laws, to allow the construction of more housing in cities where more people want to live than there is housing. Most of the most expensive places have housing supply limited by legal restrictions, not economics. If you allow construction the cost of housing is over the medium term limited to the cost of construction, or give or take $150 per square foot. See how the major Texas cities can be so economically vibrant while still remaining affordable. Chicago in specific might not be impacted as much as others because housing prices are relatively low for such a major city.
Yes the government should pass laws, or more accurately repeal existing laws, to allow the construction of more housing in cities where more people want to live than there is housing. Most of the most expensive places have housing supply limited by legal restrictions, not economics. If you allow construction the cost of housing is over the medium term limited to the cost of construction, or give or take $150 per square foot. See how the major Texas cities can be so economically vibrant while still remaining affordable. Chicago in specific might not be impacted as much as others because housing prices are relatively low for such a major city.
Your not making any sense, Texas cities are skyrocketing in prices because the cities only just got recently viable. Chicago is also a massive city, so demand is much higher, When Dallas and Houston hit 10 million people, their housing prices might slightly be lower than Chicago but will still be expensive nether the less.
Also the biggest thing towards anti-growth in cities isn't the law, it's residents being NIMBY's themselves. The politicians get more money if they let developers run rampant, it's the constituents that keep them in line. If you wanted more development, eminent domain would have to be easier and politicians would have to risk more backlash from voters, who always want their old, grand house in the center of the city to stay, and the new bland apartment building or condo won't be built. Liberal politicians aren't against development, their constituents are. Development isn't a liberal or conservative thing, Houston has had development blocked for years by mostly conservative politicians. Places like Sugar Land don't want to look an different in 50 years and that town is purple. Katy, which doesn't really have a government is a developers dream, and that place is purple although with a conservative tilt, while SL has a more liberal tilt. Richmond is a developer's dream for the same reason as Katy and that place is really blue. San Francisco is mired by NIMBYism and that plae is even more blue than Richmond, Texas. It really doesn't matter what party the government is but what type of government it is. Katy and Richmond are mostly unincorporated Fort Bend and Harris Counties about anything can be built there. Sugar Land and San Fran are cities with small well-defined boundaries... Houston is a city with defined boundaries but those boundaries are consistently growing and growing.
"Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group."
"Pew defines the middle class as those earning between two-thirds and double the median household income.This means that the category of middle-income is made up of people making somewhere between $40,500 and $122,000."
In Chicago HALF the households have an income of over $68,000 - WELL within the range of "Middle Class"
Ken
They don't want to understand.
We can trace the roots of the wealth divide to Reaganomics. 40 years of fical policies that have stripped away the protections workers had. 40 years of policies that stole away our pensions , took away employee leverage and stacked the deck to favor capital over labour.
In all things balance. But 40 years of tipping the scales to the right has resulted in hypercapitalism, a winner takes all nation and to hell with everyone else.
Republicans pushing stories of a destroyed middle class in cities is done to make their more rural supporters feel better about their own struggles. Republicans have to pretend that social safety nets hurt the middle class, because if we were to start building robust safety nets taxation of the wealthy and corporations would have to be increased.
This is why they lie and pretend liberalism itself is bad. Because if the Republican base ever figure out that broad, strong social safety nets are good for the bottom 90% they will abandon the republican party in droves.
FOR THE TRUMPERS OUT THERE....
40 years of reaganomics with no real leftwing since Bill clinton took the oath, has left the nation RICH, but the population POOR.
Ya don't need an econ degree to figure out it did not trickle down and never will. Trump is just a shouty nasty version of reagan. His policies are for the rich not the middle nor the bottom. Pretending illegals or muslims, or liberals are the problem is how they keep you voting against yourselves...
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier
You're not wrong. I do think a lot of it falls on them. Union folks on the Iron Range, for example, continue to vote Democrat, largely because they don't have to deal with the ramifications of the liberal insanity we deal with every day in the inner cities.
They probably continue to vote D because Republicans are anti-Union. Most smart people wouldn't vote against their own self interest
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
Your not making any sense, Texas cities are skyrocketing in prices because the cities only just got recently viable. Chicago is also a massive city, so demand is much higher, When Dallas and Houston hit 10 million people, their housing prices might slightly be lower than Chicago but will still be expensive nether the less.
Also the biggest thing towards anti-growth in cities isn't the law, it's residents being NIMBY's themselves. The politicians get more money if they let developers run rampant, it's the constituents that keep them in line. If you wanted more development, eminent domain would have to be easier and politicians would have to risk more backlash from voters, who always want their old, grand house in the center of the city to stay, and the new bland apartment building or condo won't be built. Liberal politicians aren't against development, their constituents are. Development isn't a liberal or conservative thing, Houston has had development blocked for years by mostly conservative politicians. Places like Sugar Land don't want to look an different in 50 years and that town is purple. Katy, which doesn't really have a government is a developers dream, and that place is purple although with a conservative tilt, while SL has a more liberal tilt. Richmond is a developer's dream for the same reason as Katy and that place is really blue. San Francisco is mired by NIMBYism and that plae is even more blue than Richmond, Texas. It really doesn't matter what party the government is but what type of government it is. Katy and Richmond are mostly unincorporated Fort Bend and Harris Counties about anything can be built there. Sugar Land and San Fran are cities with small well-defined boundaries... Houston is a city with defined boundaries but those boundaries are consistently growing and growing.
Some of the Dallas suburbs like Plano and Frisco are pretty damn expensive now....
Your not making any sense, Texas cities are skyrocketing in prices because the cities only just got recently viable. Chicago is also a massive city, so demand is much higher, When Dallas and Houston hit 10 million people, their housing prices might slightly be lower than Chicago but will still be expensive nether the less.
Also the biggest thing towards anti-growth in cities isn't the law, it's residents being NIMBY's themselves. The politicians get more money if they let developers run rampant, it's the constituents that keep them in line. If you wanted more development, eminent domain would have to be easier and politicians would have to risk more backlash from voters, who always want their old, grand house in the center of the city to stay, and the new bland apartment building or condo won't be built. Liberal politicians aren't against development, their constituents are. Development isn't a liberal or conservative thing, Houston has had development blocked for years by mostly conservative politicians. Places like Sugar Land don't want to look an different in 50 years and that town is purple. Katy, which doesn't really have a government is a developers dream, and that place is purple although with a conservative tilt, while SL has a more liberal tilt. Richmond is a developer's dream for the same reason as Katy and that place is really blue. San Francisco is mired by NIMBYism and that plae is even more blue than Richmond, Texas. It really doesn't matter what party the government is but what type of government it is. Katy and Richmond are mostly unincorporated Fort Bend and Harris Counties about anything can be built there. Sugar Land and San Fran are cities with small well-defined boundaries... Houston is a city with defined boundaries but those boundaries are consistently growing and growing.
Let me ask a simple question - is the cost of apartments (i.e. relatively land-efficient housing) significantly above the cost of construction in any of the municipalities which don't limit the construction of apartments?
Allowing construction doesn't guarantee cheap or stable housing prices. You're still talking ballpark $300K for a 2000 square foot unit, which is still beyond the ability of many to afford; it does put a ceiling in place, which most of the large liberal cities in the northeast and on the west coast with aggressive construction restrictions needlessly and severely breach.
Middle class is disappearing in all large and mid size cities, this is not new or news for anyone with a job today.
true .
Across the nation, cities,suburbs rural...... the middle classes have been eroded. In part due to Reagan's lie of trickle down that we have stuck to for 40 years, and in part due to the great flattening of the world due to the interwebs and improved transport...
Reaganomics is something we can change. For the first time in a long long time there is a party that is talking about rolling back some the egregious policies of the right leaning Democratic party and the ultra right Republicans...
If the insane UNDER taxing of the richest Americans and corporations is reversed, we could find the middle class and working poor under a lot less pressure.
Yes, that map is a lot clearer, and one can argue perhaps Wicker Park and Bucktown are in the edge of the blue area.
BUT it CLEARLY shows that Pilsen, Bridgeport, McKinley Park, Portage Park, Humboldt Park, and possibly Ukrainian Village and Logan Square in the red zone.
Anyway you slice it, those are NOT poverty stricken neighborhoods.
The point is, these are NOT poor poverty stricken neighborhoods. These are part of the city where the middle class live. Yes, some of these neighborhoods used to be poorer and gentrification ushered in wealthier residents while some poor Chicagoans stayed. But it would point to the neighborhoods improving, not declining like the Fox News reported. Fox reported the exact opposite of what is really happening.
.
It's important to note that the article has an income threshold on what qualifies as a middle class neighborhood or census tract. For instance,Bridgeport had a medium household income of $43,056 in 2015, which means it may or may not be considered middle class overall, depending on the household sizes. But, Bridgeport has always been working class or lower middle income at best, and is now currently seeing influx of Chinese that are probably spilling over from Armour Square/Chinatown, which is a low income tract(you wouldn't think so because of the businesses). This article reveals the great deception in Chicago(and perhaps in cities like San Francisco, NYC, and LA), and not just in how a neighborhood looks but it's probably best not to judge the income of residents living in certain neighborhoods based on home values. The fact that you can find homes valued at $300-500k in a neighborhood with a median household income at $43,000 indicates that the neighborhood is being overpriced and could be a sign of gentrification.
Last edited by Chicagoland60426; 02-24-2019 at 03:26 PM..
After all, the current administration is already the most corrupt in modern history,
Still believe in "What more is there to say?"?
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 02-24-2019 at 04:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
