CHICAGO | Economic & Business Development

[Vlajos]

^ plus gentrification is a reflection of income/wealth changes, not age/race

[Baronvonellis]

I see, good point!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

^ plus gentrification is a reflection of income/wealth changes, not age/race

Yep. My age numbers were only in response to someone saying downtown is getting more well off because a bunch of empty nesters are moving to the city from the burbs.

Also, gentrification I think is a bit more complicated. I actually do think that an influx of younger people to an area that's not very popular in that way could maybe indicate future gentrification. I also believe that gentrification starts more at looking at income levels that are closer to 60k or 70k. But, there are other things to look at too from amount of new construction to housing costs to....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Logan Square and West town only became post-college hubs 5-10 years ago. I graduated college 12 years ago and knew nobody who lived in this area, almost all were in Lakeview and Lincoln Park. Now they are quickly becoming young family hubs. The real question is whether these families stay another 15 years or move out as soon as their kids reach school age. CPS improvement and lower crime will be the determining factors for many of these people.

The last time I was a regular 20 something “party animal” in Chicago was around 2002-2003. At that time it was all Lakeview, LP, Weed St district, Lake St in the Fulton Market, Rush/Division, etc.

My observation is that much (but not all) of this has changed. Bars have gone upscale, Weed St has largely disappeared, and there appears to be more nightlife in a River North than there used to be. This tends to follow the demographic changes we’ve seen.

But I guess we shouldn’t veer too off topic here.

[left of center]

^ $2 pitchers at Joe's on Weed was how I spent most of my Tuesdays in the mid 00's!

[marothisu]

Ran the numbers for households which make 6+ figures where the main householder is under the age of 45 years old..... the downtown area (NNS, NWS, NSS, Loop) increased by 10,741 households from 2010 to 2016 in this regard, or an increase of 56.2%. If you add in West Town, Lakeview, Logan Square, Lincoln Park then it was an increase of 18,939 households or a 34.7% increase.


I'll just put this here....

SOURCE: 2010 and 2016 5 year US Census ACS. Table B19037 (used 5 year ACS so I can add up the CAs of Chicago)

NYC: +73,346 households making 6+ figures with householder under the age of 45
Chicago: +26,019 households
Houston: +23,894 households
San Francisco: +23,328 households
Seattle: +23,328 households
Downtown Chicago + Surrounding (West Town, Lakeview, Logan Square, and Lincoln Park): +18,939 households
DC: +18,810 households
Austin: +16,759 households
Los Angeles: +15,972 households
Denver: +15,582 households
Philadelphia: +12,331 households
Boston: +12,284 households
Portland: +11,362 households
Downtown Chicago (NNS+NSS+NWS+Loop): +10,741 households
San Diego: +9950 households
Dallas: +9613 households
Columbus, OH: +8879 households
San Antonio: +8183 households
Fort Worth: +7757 households
San Jose: +7188 households
Baltimore: +6844 households
Nashville: +6357 households
Minneapolis: +6270 households
Charlotte: +5984 households
Jersey City, NJ: +5537 households
Oakland: +5461 households
Oklahoma City: +5382 households
Raleigh: +5002 households
Madison, WI: +4348 households
Miami: +3466 households
El Paso: +3453 households
Atlanta: +3166 households
Milwaukee: +2866 households
Indianapolis: +2767 households
Cleveland: +1368 households
Jacksonville: +826 households
Memphis: +157 households
Plano, TX: -208 households
Phoenix: -401 households
Detroit: -1080 households
Las Vegas: -2439 households



Downtown Chicago outgained the entire city of Dallas......Downtown + those few other areas outgained the entire city of Los Angeles, even though this area is something like 13% the size of Los Angeles....This is actually pretty crazy.

[Justin_Chicago]

Northwestern spinout NuMat raises $12.4 million

One of the Chicago area's most intriguing startups, NuMat Technologies, has raised another $12.4 million after hitting at important milestone.

The Northwestern University spinout is commercializing technology that could lead to more efficient ways to store and sort chemicals. The company invented a way to make atomic-scale sponges, which can store gases or separate them more efficiently than current methods that usually involve compressing or dramatically cooling gases. These super-sponges can be made out of various materials, depending on what's being stored.

NuMat showed early promise, winning multiple business-plan competitions, including the Clean Energy Challenge six years ago. Last year, it hit a milestone bysigning a partnership with Versum Materials, a major supplier to the semiconductor industry. NuMat is building metal cylinders used to store specialty gases used in making computer chips.

NuMat, which is based at the Illinois Technology Park in Skokie, has grown to 20 full-time employees. CEO Benjamin Hernandez says he expects headcount to increase to about 30 over the next 18 months.

Article: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...s-12-4-million

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Ran the numbers for households which make 6+ figures where the main householder is under the age of 45 years old..... the downtown area (NNS, NWS, NSS, Loop) increased by 10,741 households from 2010 to 2016 in this regard, or an increase of 56.2%. If you add in West Town, Lakeview, Logan Square, Lincoln Park then it was an increase of 18,939 households or a 34.7% increase.


I'll just put this here....

SOURCE: 2010 and 2016 5 year US Census ACS. Table B19037 (used 5 year ACS so I can add up the CAs of Chicago)

NYC: +73,346 households making 6+ figures with householder under the age of 45
Chicago: +26,019 households
Houston: +23,894 households
San Francisco: +23,328 households
Seattle: +23,328 households
Downtown Chicago + Surrounding (West Town, Lakeview, Logan Square, and Lincoln Park): +18,939 households
DC: +18,810 households
Austin: +16,759 households
Los Angeles: +15,972 households
Denver: +15,582 households
Philadelphia: +12,331 households
Boston: +12,284 households
Portland: +11,362 households
Downtown Chicago (NNS+NSS+NWS+Loop): +10,741 households
San Diego: +9950 households
Dallas: +9613 households
Columbus, OH: +8879 households
San Antonio: +8183 households
Fort Worth: +7757 households
San Jose: +7188 households
Baltimore: +6844 households
Nashville: +6357 households
Minneapolis: +6270 households
Charlotte: +5984 households
Jersey City, NJ: +5537 households
Oakland: +5461 households
Oklahoma City: +5382 households
Raleigh: +5002 households
Madison, WI: +4348 households
Miami: +3466 households
El Paso: +3453 households
Atlanta: +3166 households
Milwaukee: +2866 households
Indianapolis: +2767 households
Cleveland: +1368 households
Jacksonville: +826 households
Memphis: +157 households
Plano, TX: -208 households
Phoenix: -401 households
Detroit: -1080 households
Las Vegas: -2439 households



Downtown Chicago outgained the entire city of Dallas......Downtown + those few other areas outgained the entire city of Los Angeles, even though this area is something like 13% the size of Los Angeles....This is actually pretty crazy.

This is possibly the most staggering piece of data on this topic you've shown so far. Gotta give props to Houston, Seattle, and SF of course, although in Houston's case it's very likely that this gain in households is over a much, much larger geographic area and far less urban than in Chi, Seattle, SF.

LA's showing is indeed quite weak.

Anyhow, this data really puts out there how substantial Chicago's core boom is. When Aaron Renn and Crawford try to dismiss Chicago's boom as "Well every city is booming, what's so special about Chicago?" this and other data you've dug up tell exactly that.

What's even more interesting is that your data ends in 2016. But there is a ton of development coming online, and I'm guessing these demographic trends have only accelerated since then.

[the urban politician]

Special mention also needs to go to Columbus, OH, Minneapolis, and Madison, WI.

We need to keep an eye on Columbus. Higher income and young households are growing. That's a good sign for that city's future.

All three of these above cities are beating Atlanta, the darling of sundry internet blogger who clings lazily to population growth stats, and Miami, the darling of those who cling to the illusion of the "elite coastal city" model.

Indianapolis' poor showing here tells a lot as well. Detroit is very sad, and surprising. I always was under the impression that the core of that city was starting to see substantial investment again.

[rgolch]

Yea, the low numbers for LA are surprising, especially given the cost of living in that city. Madison, WI on the other hand.... holy crap... talk about punching above your weight class....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Here is the data for 2010 to 2016 change in $100K+ earning households:

Source: 2010 and 2016 US Census American Community Survey, 1 year. Table DP03
https://factfinder.census.gov

Change in $100K households between 2010 and 2016:
1. NYC: +227,754 Households
2. Los Angeles: +102,178 Households
3. Chicago: +85,935 Households
4. San Francisco: +63,230 Households
5. Houston: +60,737 Households
6. Seattle: +57,145 Households
7. Austin: +54,772 Households
8. San Diego: +52,201 Households
9. San Jose: +50,477 Households
10. Washington DC: +36,133 Households
11. Philadelphia: +36,018 Households
12. Portland: +34,698 Households
13. Denver: +34,122 Households
14. Charlotte: +33,017 Households
15. Phoenix: +32,251 Households
16. Dallas: +31,580 Households
17. Boston: +30,368 Households
18. Fort Worth: +26,627 Households
19. San Antonio: +25,585 Households
20. Nashville: +25,273 Households
21. Columbus: +23,270 Households
22. Oakland: +21,030 Households
23. Jacksonville: +18,990 Households
24. Raleigh: +18,527 Households
25. Atlanta: +17,998 Households
26. Oklahoma City: +16,796 Households
27. Indianapolis: +15,499 Households
28. Baltimore: +15,257 Households
29. Minneapolis: +14,870 Households
30. Omaha: +14,825 Households
31. Sacramento: +14,730 Households
32. Colorado Springs: +14,518 Households
33. Louisville: +13,513 Households
34. Irvine, CA: +13,488 Households
35. Madison, WI: +12,481 Households
36. Tampa: +12,258 Households
37. Jersey City: +11,884 Households
38. Mesa, AZ: +11,684 Households
39. Las Vegas: +11,216 Households
40. Miami: +10,762 Households
41. Milwaukee: +10,193 Households
42. Virginia Beach: +10,069 Households
43. Tulsa: +9698 Households
44. Durham, NC: +9258 Households
45. Plano, TX: +9098 Households
46. St. Petersburg: +9032 Households
47. Pittsburgh: +8944 Households
48. St. Paul: +8908 Households
49. Wichita: +8755 Households
50. Lincoln, NE: +8735 Households
51. Anchorage: +8569 Households
52. Riverside: +8339 Households
53. Kansas City: +8294 Households
54. St. Louis: +8126 Households
55. Fresno: +7993 Households
56. Long Beach: +7896 Households
57. Aurora, CO: +7456 Households
58. New Orleans: +7284 Households
59. Orlando: +7278 Households
60. Albuquerque: +7244 Households
61. Arlington, TX: +7105 Households
62. Stockton, CA: +6966 Households
63. Anaheim: +6793 Households
64. Henderson, NV: +6594 Households
65. Corpus Christi: +6513 Households
66. El Paso: +6158 Households
67. Memphis: +6065 Households
68. Greensboro, NC: +5758 Households
69. Cincinnati: +5630 Households
70. Bakersfield: +5426 Households
71. Lubbock, TX: +5000 Households
72. Toledo: +4961 Households
73. Fort Wayne: +4400 Households
74. Tucson: +4361 Households
75. Detroit: +4204 Households
76. Chula Vista, CA: +4067 Households
77. Buffalo: +4009 Households
78. Laredo, TX: +3838 Households
79. Cleveland: +3534 Households
80. Newark: +3480 Households

Using the under 45 data and comparing to the above, I made the following calculations for the top 6 cities. Below is the percentage of total >$100k household gainers from 2010-2016 whose main earner was < 45 years of age

NYC 32%
LA 15.6%
Chicago 30%
SF 37%
Houston 39%
Seattle 41%

Relatively more "young" wealth in SF, Houston, and Seattle; NY and Chicago a tad older, and LA substantially lower

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Special mention also needs to go to Columbus, OH, Minneapolis, and Madison, WI.

We need to keep an eye on Columbus. Higher income and young households are growing. That's a good sign for that city's future.

All three of these above cities are beating Atlanta, the darling of sundry internet blogger who clings lazily to population growth stats, and Miami, the darling of those who cling to the illusion of the "elite coastal city" model.

Indianapolis' poor showing here tells a lot as well. Detroit is very sad, and surprising. I always was under the impression that the core of that city was starting to see substantial investment again.

Not sure why you're putting so much stock in this list. People making 100K+ are not the only people who matter when it comes to urban regeneration, far from it.... 83% of American households have less than $100K incomes...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Yea, the low numbers for LA are surprising, especially given the cost of living in that city. Madison, WI on the other hand.... holy crap... talk about punching above your weight class....

A few months ago I was looking at data for the percentage of people who spend more than 35% of their income on housing....let's just say that LA did not do well. They had one of the highest percentages of any city, which is not a good thing. Chicago was in the middle and SF and NYC were surprisingly low (but they also had a higher percentage of households with more than one earner I believe so that's another story).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Not sure why you're putting so much stock in this list. People making 100K+ are not the only people who matter when it comes to urban regeneration, far from it.... 83% of American households have less than $100K incomes...

Because money makes the world go around.

That's why New York's metro population is 20 million, as is Calcutta's, but clearly New York is 1000 times more important.

But by all means I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to the under $100k crowd. I'm just saying that we should be paying attention to this as well when pundits keep ringing Chicago's death knells

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Not sure why you're putting so much stock in this list. People making 100K+ are not the only people who matter when it comes to urban regeneration, far from it.... 83% of American households have less than $100K incomes...

I agree but the list is telling in its own ways. I plan on running the data for $60k and above. I'm sure we'll see a slightly different story with some of these cities.

[Chi-Sky21]

Crap , all this time i thought it was love.....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I agree but the list is telling in its own ways. I plan on running the data for $60k and above. I'm sure we'll see a slightly different story with some of these cities.

You should also see if you can run the data for households under $60k

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You should also see if you can run the data for households under $60k

Yeah I have the ability to...that will be pretty telling too

[Vlajos]

marothisu, where do you find the $60K break down in incomes? I am using American Fact Finder 1 year estimates. I am seeing income bands $49,999 and below or $50,000+.

In 2016, Chicago had 52.9% of households making $50k+.
In 2010, Chicago had 45.8% of households making $50k+.

The numbers are inflation adjusted too. We are clearly losing lower income residents. $50K is below the area median income. We've gained almost 40,000 households from 2010 - 2016.

[the urban politician]

100 jobs coming downtown:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...hall-as-tenant