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.
No, and here's why: there's a tradeoff between transportation costs and real estate values near key employment cores, particularly downtown Chicago. As transportation costs rise, so does the demand on real estate near employment cores. At some point, the higher cost of real estate offsets any savings in transportation costs (including time-savings) gained by moving closer to the employment core. It may cost less to commute from Oak Park than to commute from Elmhurst, but it sure doesn't cost less to live in Oak Park than Elmhurst.
Additionally, there is also a whole ton of employment opportunities in the suburbs that are accessible from exurban areas. And as long as it's cheaper to live in DeKalb than Geneva, some people will be willing to commute to Naperville from DeKalb even if it's cheaper to commute there from Geneva. As long as the area population continues to grow, so will the boundaries of development.
Finally, there's a whole lot of NIMBYism to fight when it comes to trying to increase housing density in already established areas. In the long run it's probably often cheaper to buy out a farmer and develop the open land than try to infill an existing area.
You’ve got a point insofar as a comparison to the already affluent inner-ring suburbs and City neighborhoods is concerned, but it’s not a simple matter of “Oak Park/River Forest or ex-burb.” We must not forget that there is a ton of underutilized land in the City and inner-ring. In the “Gentrified Neighborhood Count” thread, we only came up with about 15 out of 77 Chicago community areas which have substantially gentrified thus far, and another 15 or so which are in the process of gentrifying. Plenty of room for continued redevelopment.
It would be far cheaper to reside in one of the better of these non-gentrified areas as opposed to Elmhurst, and it will take them a long time on the gentrification continuum for them to reach that kind of cost of living level. Even if you sent 3 kids through private schools K-12 in one of these areas, you wouldn’t even come remotely close to the cost of living as Elmhurst over a 10-15 year time period.
These areas can easily be revitalized without increasing their density. In fact, their revitalization will probably decrease their present density. That has happened in several community areas and will continue to happen so long as the demand for real estate near the Loop continues to rise.
It will be a long while before the cost of living in the City and inner-ring completely offsets the cost of transportation to the ex-burbs (i.e. probably not during our lifetime). And while there are a lot of jobs in the suburbs, those job bases are a joke compared to the job base (and amenities) provided by the City.
Chet's got a point when it comes to being easy to simply bulldoze a farm and pop a bunch of cheaply built houses up on it under more relaxed building code standards, but I think he slightly understates the part where you "con the town" into building infrastructure Not as easy as that sounds, especially in a climate where a lot of these developments sitting half empty with half the inventory in foreclosure. And it won't matter anyway if demand becomes focused near the City.
It would be far cheaper to reside in one of the better of these non-gentrified areas as opposed to Elmhurst, and it will take them a long time on the gentrification continuum for them to reach that kind of cost of living level. Even if you sent 3 kids through private schools K-12 in one of these areas, you wouldn’t even come remotely close to the cost of living as Elmhurst over a 10-15 year time period.
If this were so, why aren't more people doing it? It seems self-evident by the number of young middle-class families who flee the city once it's time to put their kids into school that this just isn't the case. This city is fast becoming one of working/lower-class and singles/DINKS/retirees with middle-class families.
And to call the suburban job base a "joke" is, well, kind of silly. There's a whole lot of jobs out there, and a lot of corporate offices out there too.
If this were so, why aren't more people doing it? It seems self-evident by the number of young middle-class families who flee the city once it's time to put their kids into school that this just isn't the case. This city is fast becoming one of working/lower-class and singles/DINKS/retirees with middle-class families.
And to call the suburban job base a "joke" is, well, kind of silly. There's a whole lot of jobs out there, and a lot of corporate offices out there too.
A lot of people are. There are plenty of families who are choosing to raise their kids in the City in lieu of moving to further out suburbia -- certainly a whole lot more so than 10-15 years ago. I think those numbers will continue to increase. That will cause quality of life and things like public schools will improve, which will accelerate the process. The distance, fuel prices, and commute times are starting to become too much for people.
Maybe "joke" wasn't quite fair, but there really is no comparison between the Loop and the suburban job bases. And those job bases are easily accessible from many areas of the City and inner-ring anyway. In Oak Park/Berwyn/Forest Park, for example, you're about equal distance from the Loop, Oak Brook, and I-294 job corridors. So it's not like you necessarily inconvenience yourself from the suburban job bases by living in the City.
Yes, a lot of affluent people are. The idea that your average middle-class family can just as easily shell out some 25 to 50 grand a year to put 3 kids through private school and afford a house in a decent neighborhood in the city as live in the suburbs is ludicrous, unless maybe they bought in before the big housing bubble and they can borrow against the equity in their home to send their kids to a private school.
Meanwhile, we now see what this is really about: not "saving on transportation costs" but living in the city as an aesthetic preference. "It's just as easy to live in the city and commute to the suburbs!" I thought the idea was to cut down on the commute in the first place to save transportation costs? And not everyone shares this preference either: plenty of people just plain don't want to live in the city.
Anyway, I stand by my original assertion: as long as outlying land is cheaper to develop and own than existing developed real estate, and as long as the metro population continues to grow, suburban sprawl is not going to reverse. Even if transportation costs remain high, people will find ways to budget around it. Check back in with me 20 years from now.
Yes, a lot of affluent people are. The idea that your average middle-class family can just as easily shell out some 25 to 50 grand a year to put 3 kids through private school and afford a house in a decent neighborhood in the city as live in the suburbs is ludicrous, unless maybe they bought in before the big housing bubble and they can borrow against the equity in their home to send their kids to a private school.
Meanwhile, we now see what this is really about: not "saving on transportation costs" but living in the city as an aesthetic preference. "It's just as easy to live in the city and commute to the suburbs!" I thought the idea was to cut down on the commute in the first place to save transportation costs? And not everyone shares this preference either: plenty of people just plain don't want to live in the city.
Anyway, I stand by my original assertion: as long as outlying land is cheaper to develop and own than existing developed real estate, and as long as the metro population continues to grow, suburban sprawl is not going to reverse. Even if transportation costs remain high, people will find ways to budget around it. Check back in with me 20 years from now.
It's far more than an "aesthetic preference" to want to live near a City center. The benefits of such living go well beyond that. And private schools aren't the only way to ensure a good education in the City or inner ring. There are magnet schools and even decent regular public schools. Not all schools within 10 miles of the City are horrible. Then there's, you know, the concept of actually getting involved in your kid's education. That concept may be gathering dust at the Field Museum at this point but it is possible.
My comment re commuting to the suburban job bases was to just illustrate a point of convenience, not to imply that there's going to be any mass job shift to the suburbs.
Anyway, you're right, both of us are just pontificating our theories at this point. We will indeed need to wait 20 years to be sure. If nothing else, it will be interesting.
I think for most suburban residents, they like where they live. Not everyone commutes to chicago and mass transit means nothing to them. We like to have a yard, no gun shots being fired, not worried that something will happen to our kids on the way to school. We have paid a price for these benefits, but I personally have no regrets. I do try to condense my driving trips to accomplish more, to avoid an extra day of chasing. I would never think of selling my house and moving to the city and I am sure that there are others who feel the same way!
I'm the same as SG. I would never like to live in the city.... for one, i do not like crowds. If my kids were not currently living at home... DH and I would move farther out into the sticks.
In the short term, I don't think the overdeveloped, oversized subdivisions are sustainable. It could get really ugly.
In the long term, I have no crystal ball, but am planning to buy our next home based on this gut instinct:
Fuel prices are going to bury people. Big homes will be expensive to heat and cool. Long commutes in traffic will cost major bucks. At some point, there may even be some global warming/carbon emission taxes or surcharges on all of it. Yikes.
With this in mind, we're staying away from upper-middle-class far-flung McMansion suburbs and sticking with long established, tree-lined suburbs that are closer in and walkable to commuter rail.
I think the cities could definitely make a huge comeback. But as person who wants walkable public schools now (and in our case, decent special ed help), the city just won't cut it.
In the short term, I don't think the overdeveloped, oversized subdivisions are sustainable. It could get really ugly.
In the long term, I have no crystal ball, but am planning to buy our next home based on this gut instinct:
Fuel prices are going to bury people. Big homes will be expensive to heat and cool. Long commutes in traffic will cost major bucks. At some point, there may even be some global warming/carbon emission taxes or surcharges on all of it. Yikes.
With this in mind, we're staying away from upper-middle-class far-flung McMansion suburbs and sticking with long established, tree-lined suburbs that are closer in and walkable to commuter rail.
I think the cities could definitely make a huge comeback. But as person who wants walkable public schools now (and in our case, decent special ed help), the city just won't cut it.
Schools are definitely a major Achilles heel for most City neighborhoods and inner-ring suburbs. But who is to say there won't be any major changes in how education is funded over the next decade? I predict at some point, that will happen. The inequities are simply getting too large to ignore now. Public school reform could end up being a big X factor in all of this, in ways that we're not able to foresee now.
Funding has virtually nothing to do with it. At nearly $11,000 per pupil per year, CPS's budget is not exactly inadequate. It has everything to do with a major bureaucracy being so entrenched and self-serving that it is simply unable to deliver a quality educational product. If CPS's budget doubled tomorrow, the extra money would vanish into a cosmic vacuum of incompetence, patronage and waste. Little of it would actually reach the classroom level nor would it measurably improve academic outcomes. And this is hardly unique to Chicago either; this is a common problem with nearly every major-city school district. Washington DC's per-pupil budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000/yr, NYC's about $17,000, and their results are no better.
Last edited by Drover; 05-04-2008 at 10:46 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.
Not as easy as that sounds, especially in a climate where a lot of these developments sitting half empty with half the inventory in foreclosure. And it won't matter anyway if demand becomes focused near the City.
