Market Conditions: Will Downtown Apartment Rents Soar in 2011?
Crain’s is reporting that due to too many people wanting to rent, and not enough willing to buy condos or other property, that there won’t be enough apartments to house all those who want to rent one downtown.
The result?
Downtown apartment rents are expected to jump anywhere from 8% to 10% in 2011.
This despite a nearly 10% unemployment rate.
“I think we are poised for some rent spikes next year because demand is so high,” says Ron DeVries, vice-president at Appraisal Research Counselors. “Everyone wants to rent.”
Demand for downtown apartments has outpaced supply, even as developers have built nearly 5,600 units over the past three years amid the worst economy since the Great Depression. That combination would normally make life miserable for landlords, but the depressed condominium market and shaky economy have saved them by encouraging more people to rent instead of buying.
“Renting just allows for flexibility in your life, and when people are uncertain, they want flexibility,” says David Lynd, president and chief operating officer of the Lynd Co., a San Antonio-based developer that recently completed EnV, a 249-unit apartment tower in River North.
Renters are choosing to rent in the luxury buildings even over renting the luxury condos, probably due to lower downpayment requirements and some lease incentives.
But the most surprising indicator of demand is absorption, or the change in the number of occupied apartments. Downtown landlords have rented out an additional 2,076 units since the end of 2009, an 11.7% increase, according to Appraisal Research. At the current rate, 2010 will go down as the best year for absorption since at least 2001, the earliest year for which figures are available.
And that’s despite a weak job market, usually the most important driver of demand for apartments. The Chicago area still had 69,300 fewer jobs in September compared with year earlier, but jobs are coming back, a good trend for landlords.
Developers have added 2,324 apartments to the downtown market in 2010, the most since at least 1999, the result of a construction boom that began before the financial crisis choked off development. With no new projects under way, it could be two years or more before apartment supply increases again, which could shift the market even more back in landlords’ favor.
“It’s a pretty tight market,” Mr. DeVries says. “It’s going to tighten down next year.”
Crain’s said several condo towers could go rental shortly including Lexington Park and Astoria Tower in the South Loop which will add to the inventory, but even that doesn’t appear to be enough to meet the demand.
Is renting now “cool” and owning passe?
Big rent hikes foreseen for downtown apartments [Crain’s Chicago Business, Alby Gallun, November 15, 2010]
Wait, fewer jobs than last year, “The Chicago area still had 69,300 fewer jobs in September compared with year earlier” plus the most new apartments coming on the market since 1999, “Developers have added 2,324 apartments to the downtown market in 2010, the most since at least 1999”, plus condos switching to apartments, “condo towers could go rental shortly including Lexington Park and Astoria Tower in the South Loop which will add to the inventory”, to go along with all of the accidental landlords stuck with renting out their underwater condos already. How on Earth does that translate to a possible 10% increase in rent?
I’ve been renting downtown for the last 5 years and there is no doubt that people are continuing to rent downtown. However, absorption of new units is only keeping up with new construction, not outpacing it. I say this because my rent has not changed in 3 years… Well, we can test this theory out in the early spring. I will give my landlord the option of ending my lease early so they can get the unit ready for prime rental season. I bet they say no…
not convinced.
Let’s check back on this in 6 months.
Wait, I have been saying this for months and everyone has been laughing at me and not believing it – but I’m telling you it is the truth. It is not that hard to figure out: you have a growing population, fixed number of housing units, and inability for more and more people to buy – what is going to happen? The rental market is going to be flooded. I saw it with my own properties in 2010. Interest in renting is high and all of my properties rented within a couple of weeks being put on the MLS. In 2004-2007, it tooks SEVERAL weeks for them to be rented because everyone was trying to buy something. Really, it isn’t that hard to understand…. there WILL be a shift.
I don’t buy this at all. If anything, more people will buy in the spring because of continued price drops. Jobs keep stagnating, which means more people in their 20’s are living at home, or having more roommates than normal. Certain areas will probably see rent increases, but those are few and far between in the city, due to the glut of condo inventory being rented.
I just renewed my rental agreement for another 6 mos in a rental building. Prices went up a couple percent since May.
Anecdotally, I have noticed more people talking about how they see themselves renting for longer than they “need to” which is a major contradiction to the traditional Chicago rent v buy mentality. If this philosophy becomes widespread then it’s probably time to start consider buying.
My peer group are mid to late 20s kids and I can’t emphasize how often I used to hear that people were saving for a downpayment. It’s not that all of them are broke, it’s that they just don’t seem as intent on owning a home as young as possible.
The thing that I find interesting is that the rents in these new high rises are not cheap (even with 2 or 3 months “free” rent incentives.) The 1-bedrooms are anywhere from $1500 to $2000 a month and it goes up from there.
What kind of jobs do these new Chicagoans have that they can pay that kind of rent? And there are thousands of them all with starting jobs allowing them to pay $1800 a month?
But I do think that the era of “I’m buying a condo” may finally be going away.
And if they privatize Freddie and Fannie and downpayment requirements rise to 10% or 20% (or whatever they will rise to)- you will see many more renters as people can’t come up with the downpayment.
But let’s look the bias of the reporting units that are used here: say I’m an accidental landlord of a condo, am I reporting my rent amount to Appraisal Research? More likely only professionally managed larger buildings are participating as they get the benefit of understanding what everyone else is doing as well, and learn about occupancy rates.
That stated, these bigger buildings are also the easier to get rented – think Apartment People, all those magazines, plus if you’re moving to Chicago and don’t end up at Presidential Towers then highly likely your search agent is defaulting to these ‘lux’ building which are larger & advertised well.
So, I could accept that this group of buildings are seeing upticks. I don’t think it’d hold in the wider area (e.g.: renting in Lakeview, say in a 3 flat).
Clio’s points in the past that Americans will default to luxury are on point here, it looks like the result is that they are renting these places not buying them. I am not sure how this information supports his hypothesis that the prices of these places will skyrocket – maybe the value of entire apartment (rental) developments but not the condo untis themselves (anyone have data on that?). It seems like the preferance is for rental buildings which means there should be discount for all those accidental landlords – or am I misreading something?
Sabrina,
There are very few single-occupant apartments in my building. If it is not a married couple/family, it is a dating/roommate situation. People can afford that.
Not to mention that downtown has really grown into a viable neighborhood in the last 5 years. I have 2 full-size grocery stores within a 5 minute walk. Restaurants, bars, etc… People find that they don’t need to spend any money on owning a car or even getting a monthly CTA pass. That frees up a lot of cash for rent.
In my office 3 years ago, there was only myself and one other guy that walked to work every day. Now there are about 10. It really hits people when you tell them that you are already home by the time their Metra train pulls out of Union Station. That extra free time is worth a lot of money to a growing percentage of the population.
I know of 3 new rental building in the early planning stages, not small buildings one is +50 stories. Additionally almost every developer is trying to secure financing for their scrapped condo project as a rental building. There are a number of REITS with money to build. Short term there may be supply issues, but I don’t see it.
I had my place listed to sell for ~ 30 days and not one offer (priced within reason too). I had it listed for rent for a week, had approx. 20 people come through, and got a rental price that I wanted.
This was back in June. The rental market is hot, for sure.
And I reiterate that I don’t buy this story about rents rising 10%. My building was purchased by GE Capital Management about 4 years ago. I’ve spoken with them recently. They are very frustrated about not being able to raise rents. So frustrated that they have been reaching out to tenants to find out why.
The guys I spoke to were ready to tear out their hair when they found out that everybody loved the management and building staff and simply said that the newer building a couple blocks away was offering a similar unit for X price. So if the price of their unit was higher than X + moving costs, they were going to move.
“The guys I spoke to were ready to tear out their hair when they found out that everybody loved the management and building staff and simply said that the newer building a couple blocks away was offering a similar unit for X price.”
Be very careful about renting a great place at a great price. It doesn’t make economic sense for a landlord/owner/company to rent out at low prices. If they need to lower prices to hook people they will – and then next year you will see an astronomical rent increase. These landlords have no sympathy/compassion and will kick you out on your ass if they have someone else to rent the place.
It’s a tactic that is used a lot because landlords/owners know that there is a definite expense (financial/emotional) for people to move and that they will likely just pay the extra 100-200/month increase rather than spend a few thousand to move (to yet another uncertain residence).
That is the benefit of owning – you have a secure place that is your own – you have a relatively fixed payment. these emotional benefits are HUGE – especially when the rental market becomes “hot” and you don’t know what landlords/aptbuilding owners are going to do.
i moved last fall and the owner of our unit had to lower rents 10% to get it filled. took a couple months as well. guess i’d been paying too much.
The thing is, there is very little upside to owning a 1 bedroom condo in the city. if you are single, and can’t afford to buy a 2 bedroom in the neighborhood you want to live in, you might as well just rent. Often, an income of 100,000 or more is needed, which most young people will not be at for many years, if at all.
Clio, drive your Lambo downtown sometime. You may notice all of the shiny new apartment towers. For the last 3 years, there have always been at least one opening in the spring with some sort of special deal to lure tenants. Guess how many are opening this coming spring… Two.
Good luck finding someone willing to pay more than I am when there are two brand spanking new buildings offering move-in specials.
When the day comes that management kicks me out (I’m sure it will come), I’ll go somewhere else. If I can’t rent at my price, I’ll buy at my price. I’m not scared!
Last summer, rents were down anywhere from 5-10%. If they go up 10%, they will just be back where they were 2-3 years ago. No big deal in my mind. Also, it is true that REIT’s are looking to build downtown in the next 5 years. They have the cheapest source of financing and will be most able to get it done. Undersupply will not be an issue.
Another similar article with some new downtown building occupancy stats. http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/homeward-bound-chicago/2010/11/appraisal-research-half-of-downtowns-newest-apartments-are-leased-rent-hikes-coming-in-second-half-of-2011.html
Around 50% occupancy rates translate to a 10% rent increase?
Bwahahaha! I love the PR spin that must’ve been put on the publishers of that ARC article to come up with those facts.
Talk to me when they’re at 85%+, that’s when real rent increases would be justified.
Not fake headlines cooked up because the owners of the building are losing money on their tenants with current rents because their cost basis is too high.
“I’ve spoken with them recently. They are very frustrated about not being able to raise rents.”
What about their stock price? They should be frustrated their company accumulated a mountain of debt that they’re unlikely to come out of (without a bailout). But Jeffrey Immelt will be back at the WH begging for a bailout hat in hand when it becomes an issue.
“These landlords have no sympathy/compassion and will kick you out on your ass if they have someone else to rent the place.”
really? is it that much different now in the rental market? back when i rented when i would tell my landlord i was not renewing my lease and moving they always would bend over backwards to keep me. like dropping rent by 5% to one time 20%. or offering other perks like a free garage spot picking up the electric bill and the oddest one was tickets to 3 bulls games.
now it was a different time and a different hood than being discussed, but i think (and did see) landlords would want to keep clean and reasonably quiet tenants as it will attract other of the like and keep his/her cost down. (i think another reason the wanted to keep me is i did most of the small maintenance myself)
*and i didnt tell them i was moving because i was trying to negotiate a lower rent, i actually wanted to move
“Clio, drive your Lambo downtown sometime. You may notice all of the shiny new apartment towers.”
Tipster, any renter should be VERY VERY careful when renting in such buildings. Large apartment complexes have no sympathy and do not negotiate much. They will lure you in and then raise rents in 1 year by 15-20%. Those “shiny” new buildings cost a lot of money to build/maintain and developers/investors are not going to give a crap about the renters in them. On the other hand, if you rent from an individual owner you have a much greater chance of negotiating (see groove’s comment above).
Rent from an individual. It definitely doesn’t pay for an individual to re-market the apartment. The risk of one month of lost rents is big leverage to use against them.
Clio is definitely right on the above. I got 1.75 mos free rent + 6 mos free parking when I moved into my building (high end rental building). I had to negotiate a bit to get those perks, though.
A year later, rent went up small and no incentives to resign. Six months later, rent up again, although just slightly. This is in a time when rents have declined overall.
I expected this to happen and honestly at this point I’m just too lazy to move. I figured I would hop around for a couple of years and try some different rental buildings. I’d rather pay a little more than I need to in the short term to have a 6 month lease and not have to worry about what I would do with my property if I decided to leave the city. If I was looking at this purely from a financial perspective I would rent a condo unit from an accidental landlord.
“Be very careful about renting a great place at a great price. It doesn’t make economic sense for a landlord/owner/company to rent out at low prices. If they need to lower prices to hook people they will – and then next year you will see an astronomical rent increase. These landlords have no sympathy/compassion and will kick you out on your ass if they have someone else to rent the place.
It’s a tactic that is used a lot because landlords/owners know that there is a definite expense (financial/emotional) for people to move and that they will likely just pay the extra 100-200/month increase rather than spend a few thousand to move (to yet another uncertain residence).”
Agree and disagree. Agree that rents in big building adjust pretty quickly to market prices. I rented in a big river north building whenever rental prices there plummeted (early 2000s?) and signed a two year lease. After lease was up, they moved rentals close to (but still a little) below market rates they were charging new tenants.
Disagree in that especially for smaller landlords, who review tenants on a very individual basis, some may be happy to offer a somewhat (not drastically) lower price to keep a good tenant. (This is a different issue from speed of adjustment of rents. The high rise apartment buildings don’t have the ability to do this kind of individualized assessment/negotiation.) As you so often remind us, there are costs to the landlord as well as the tenant when tenants move. Having a good tenant pays rent on time and doesn’t call you about every last little thing has got to be priceless.
If they try to raise rents by 15%, half the residents would move out immediately. Since it’s already only 1/2 full, it would only be 25% occupied and th owner would probably lose the building. The rental market is very soft, and will continue to be that way, with the exception of a few extremely well occupied, unique buildings.
“If they try to raise rents by 15%, half the residents would move out immediately.”
I don’t think so – large buildings are willing to call tenants’ bluff. Think about it – if you are paying 1200/month and the landlord/building raises rent to 1350, are you really going to take the time to go out and look for a place, spend 3600 for the new place (1st, last, sec. deposit), and spend several hundred dollars and time/effort moving? Of course not. Financially and emotionally, you would be better off paying the increase. Landlords/owners know this.
Total nonsense. The sources in the article are rental developers and appraisers/analysts who make a living by serving those in the rental development industry.
I paid (slightly) less for my rent in 2010 than I did in 2009. Had I not just purchased a place, I would either be paying (slightly) lower rent in 2011, or I would be moving on to a different rental opportunity.
“spend 3600 for the new place”
No fool you’re not spending this $. Even if a building required this deposit this would be considered a pre-paid asset. And most renters in this segment aren’t cash-flow constrained like the 22-yr olds living in wrigleyville dumps, for instance.
Cut it out with the straw man arguments clio it makes you look like a fool.
More likely, they are paying 1500 for a one bed, or 2400 for a 2 bed. 15% increase would be $225 per month or $2,700 annually. Also, who charges 2 months’ security deposit anymore? If anything, you just pay a $250 move-in fee, and first months’ rent, and that’s it. Not a big deal. Moving isn’t as bad for young people anyways.
Bob – 1200 for a 1 bedroom in the G.C./L.V/L.P/RN is not “expensive” and, actually, is lower than the norm. The 3600 was 1st, last and security which is pretty standard. OK – at least they would have to come up with 2400 cash plus cash for moving expenses. More importantly, all of the headaches that come with moving (address changes, Comcast, Com Ed, Nicor, phone, etc.) make it not worth the effort for a small increase in rent.
15% is not a small increase in rent, especially if it comes 2 years in a row. Landlords would be stupid to do this. It’s not like there’s a houding shortage. Also, the 2 month security deposit is rare in Chicago – maybe if you have credit issues you need to put down 2 months, but the new standard is no security deposit with a move-in fee. This isn’t NYC where you have to pay a ton just to move – security deposit, broker fee, first and last months’ rent, etc.
“OK – at least they would have to come up with 2400 cash plus cash for moving expenses.”
Not a big deal to many in this segment.
“More importantly, all of the headaches that come with moving (address changes, Comcast, Com Ed, Nicor, phone, etc.) make it not worth the effort for a small increase in rent.”
Moving is a huge PITA I will give it to you. However these increases in rent aren’t “small”. 10% is not a “small” increase in rent. I guess its our perspectives. If my landlord tried that crap and wouldn’t budge I’d be moving. Unless I was already getting the place for below 10% of current rental values WHICH THEY ARE CURRENTLY NOT.
Rental rates, clio, are determined by the rate people are willing to pay for the apartment and whether there are landlords willing to accept those rates. Without giving you a lesson in economics clio when the article mentions that these apartment buildings are only half full I think thats a pretty good indicator of who has the leverage in this transaction (hint: its not the landlords).
Dave’s right the moving fee is much more popular with rental cos. Don’t need to deal with escrow, better coverage of costs to change tenants. This puts the power in the landlord’s hands when renegotiating the lease. Suddenly the costs of changing tenants isn’t as awful
“I don’t think so – large buildings are willing to call tenants’ bluff. Think about it – if you are paying 1200/month and the landlord/building raises rent to 1350, are you really going to take the time to go out and look for a place, spend 3600 for the new place (1st, last, sec. deposit), and spend several hundred dollars and time/effort moving? Of course not. Financially and emotionally, you would be better off paying the increase. Landlords/owners know this.”
Really depends on what market rents are. If market rents go up, I completely agree that big building will go up quickly for existing as well as new tenants. If market rents stay at 1200 (for comparable place in your example), I think few if any buildings with try to get the 1350 from existing tenants just because they have moving costs. They would quickly develop a dreadful reputation. Are you aware of buildings that have tried this? E.g., raising rents for existing tenants to higher levels than for new tenants?
“Moving isn’t as bad for young people anyways.”
Not only that, but paying for people to move you is suprisingly cheap. Up until my last move I was still getting a UHaul and asking a buddy or two to help me move. My last move I decided to do it on a weekday which meant my buddies wouldn’t be available.
Total cost for having a moving company with a team of 4 guys move me out of my old place and in to my new place: just $295! This includes the labour, moving truck. They delivered the boxes the week prior at a cost of $75 and I had everything boxed up by the time they arrived, except the larger stuff which they did a great job of packaging up.
Moving is not a big deal at all!
“Are you aware of buildings that have tried this? E.g., raising rents for existing tenants to higher levels than for new tenants?”
I’ve noticed in Chicago the way around this is they dangle ever larger incentives in front of newer tenants like first two months rent free, etc. This way existing tenants don’t have an easy apples-apples comparison in their heads and most can’t/won’t do the mental math to factor in those incentives.
there are people in the city that treat apartments as disposable, they move frequently to see different parts of the city. They tend to be on the young side and the car and driver’s license are registered to their parent’s address. As far as phone, gas, cable, elec. It’s really not that hard, if you have a cable box, you pick it up and transfer the service, no landline phone, gas and elec are pretty simple to turn on and off. This can all be accomplished in a couple days. Once you do it a couple times you’re a pro (full disclosure, I’m a military brat – I can move in my sleep).
nwzimmer: please send me the mover’s info crazedrower(at)yahoo(dot)com
more people are renting because of a weak job market, perhaps with rising commodity prices, more people won’t be willing to drive an hour from west bumblestank to get to work and downtown rents will actually increase? possibly
“there are people in the city that treat apartments as disposable, they move frequently to see different parts of the city. They tend to be on the young side”
exactly – once these guys get older (lower 30s) start accumulating more things, get busier at work, start a family(?), get settled w/ friends, they will realize that constantly moving is NOT the thing to do. This particular site may be skewed (younger users), but there is a HUGE contingent of older (30s and 40s) renters who can afford the higher rents and don’t want the hassles of moving. This is the target demographic most landlords are looking for.
This is the game people try to play – realtors are already doing it by saying that rents will go up a lot (20% or more in 2011), so you’d better buy a place now. I’ve gotten 2 messages this week from realtors desperate to show me their listings. I don’t buy this garbage.
“nwzimmer: please send me the mover’s info crazedrower(at)yahoo(dot)com”
mwzimmer please send the mover recommendation to Groove77cc ats yahoo dotz com
The “luxury” buildings we are talking about have all your utilities included except electricity. Internet, Cable, gas, etc. You pay rent plus
“I’ve noticed in Chicago the way around this is they dangle ever larger incentives in front of newer tenants like first two months rent free, etc. This way existing tenants don’t have an easy apples-apples comparison in their heads and most can’t/won’t do the mental math to factor in those incentives.”
My rough and simplified impression of how big buildings respond is as follow:
1. If market rents go up. Raise rents for new tenants more or less instantaneously to market rates. Raise for rents for existing tenants quickly (but a little slower than for new) to market.
2. If market rents stay same. No change for either existing or new rents.
3. If market rents go down. I think this is where your observation comes in. Buildings need to set market rates to attract new tenants. They may try to do it via free months rather than lower rate, primarily because this makes it easier to raise effective rents upon renewal. Maybe there is a benefit to making it more difficult for existing renters to compare, but I don’t really think there is much of one, and I don’t think that’s why they do it. Not sure how rents to existing tenants adjust downward. There’s almost certainly some rigidity and probably more negotiation too, even for bigger buildings.
Well, they rented up the first tower at K station across from Blommer chocolate during this recession, and I never thought that location was desirable for commute or amenities. But there are people there, and the dog park gets busy too.
@Clio
Last week I don’t know if you were joking on your post regarding your lunch plans a were your lambo was going to parked. I don’t want to send out the HD paranoia vibe but that probably wasn’t a good Idea, you never know what unstable invidual might want to mess with C and his infamous lambo……… And I am not referring to Bob as this potential individual………
“mwzimmer please send the mover recommendation to Groove77cc ats yahoo dotz com”
Or please post if not super private. Many of us are interested…
Speaking as one of those small landlords, good tenants are worth their weight in gold! My wife and I rent out our two bedroom, two bathroom condo in Dearborn Park (I) in one of those low-rise condo buildings. We’ve had our current tenants for three years now, and even though we know we could get more in rent for the condo (currently at $1,660/month), these tenants pay on time every month via electronic transaction, never complain, are very clean and conscientious about maintaining the condo, and do not have pets or kids. This price just about covers our entire cost for the unit (mortgage+assessment+taxes), so we haven’t felt compelled to raise the rent dramatically, especially since we’d like to keep these tenants.
The process of finding and qualifying tenants (much less dealing with tenant problems) is a much bigger deal for the small landlord.
Wait a minute – why don’t we think about this logically?
Everyone here thinks that there is going to be a HUGE HUGE number of foreclosures. Where are these people going to go? – they are going to rent. There are also a huge number of sidelined buyers. Where are they? – they are renting. Thus, you have a huge number of renters out there (which is only going to increase because of the impending foreclosures). The foreclosed properties are becoming inhabitable, very little new construction is taking place. What the hell do you think is going to happen? Premier buildings/locations will be able to command HUGE rents. When you rent, you WILL start paying a premium over home ownership for the benefit of not putting down a huge downpayment and not having to worry about upkeep, etc.
“I don’t want to send out the HD paranoia vibe but that probably wasn’t a good Idea, you never know what unstable invidual might want to mess with C and his infamous lambo”
I wasn’t kidding. I did go there. But you are right – it probably wasn’t the best idea but I love the thrill of it. I can’t help my personality. I like to live on the edge a bit.
“nwzimmer: please send me the mover’s info crazedrower(at)yahoo(dot)com”
I found them on Yelp, they were one of the highly rated company’s and my experience was consistent with the high rating.
I used USA Moving and Storage.
if anyone wants a great mover, use Burrows Moving in Rogers Park…..though you’ll have to add another digit to that in front of that 295 for Burrows, lol.
Basically, the premise of this story is that downtown rentals are hot and therefore rents will rise next year. I think that this is another case of the Trib getting it half-right. I have no doubts that the downtown rental market is hotter this year than last. It’s far cheaper to rent than own downtown and it’s become such a great destination to work and play. However, the Trib takes this premise another step and it’s that rent will rise as a result. People above have outlined the various competition keeping rental prices stable.
“I wasn’t kidding. I did go there. But you are right – it probably wasn’t the best idea but I love the thrill of it.”
Clio, like i said a earlier heads up and i will pick up the tab (non liquid lunch)
“I wasn’t kidding. I did go there. But you are right – it probably wasn’t the best idea but I love the thrill of it. I can’t help my personality. I like to live on the edge a bit.”
I would take up skydiving………. or maybe take a side job as a window washer at the Willis Tower.
“However, the Trib takes this premise another step and it’s that rent will rise as a result.”
Link to Trib article, please.
groove – sounds good – weren’t we all going to do a CC get together and match internet monikers to people?
“groove – sounds good – weren’t we all going to do a CC get together and match internet monikers to people?”
people have short attention spans here and once sabrina throw up a new post the idea fizzles.
RTFA anon(tfo)”:
“(Crain’s) — Last year, apartment landlords worried that downtown Chicago would soon have too much rental housing. By next year, it may not have enough — much to landlords’ delight.
After surviving a big development boom, downtown apartment owners will soon have the upper hand over tenants, allowing them to hike rents by as much as 8% to 10% in the second half of 2011, says Ron DeVries, vice-president at Appraisal Research Counselors, a Chicago-based research and consulting firm.”
“RTFA anon(tfo)”:”
Byline says Crain’s, HD. I want to see the Trib article you were discussing.
OOPS! Sorry Anon(tfo):
Crain’s it is.
Funny how I assumed it was the Trib because they usually post these types of paid advertisements.
Remember when Joe Z accused me of being a paid schill or the rental industry?!!!
Where’s my clerk? We need another pot of coffee.
“OOPS! Sorry Anon(tfo):
Crain’s it is. ”
Just messin’, HD.
I would love to do a get-together. Someone name a time and place!
Clio’s: 7pm tomorrow. Oak brook. His chauffers will pick us up.
“and play.”
Bwahahaha. I dunno one person nor have I ever met one that “played” downtown. Unless you mean a few drinks after work then everyone scurrying off to their destinations.
Yeah there’s the opera, museums and other cultural crap, but really how often do you do that vs. other activities? Museums don’t change much, nor do plays.
i think there are a few gyms to play hoops . the one by union station comes to mind. also you can play in the fountains at millennium park. softball fields in grant park too. swim in the river? play with dancers at pink monkey…
“swim in the river?”
Let me know how that works out fer ya.
dude – I row in it haven’t grown a tail.
(I guess row ON it would be better phrasing)
“(I guess row ON it would be better phrasing)”
Yeah and its safe for ancillary contact which includes fishing and boating. Its not safe for swimming–just ask the graffiti who fled cops and wound up jumping in it in an attempt to get away recently. Oh wait you can’t cuz he died shortly after that.
Err…the graffiti artist
Bob, no body of water is safe if you don’t know how to swim…
Bob – while it is different from being submerged, a rec 8 with some shaky guys can lead to several mouthfuls of river and being doused head to toe. Besides – gators can survive;)
“Bob, no body of water is safe if you don’t know how to swim…”
Okay maybe he died from that..not sure. Its also possible its due to the contaminants. The EPA recently awarded Bubbly Creek an environmental score of 11…on a 60 point scale.
People get sick all the time from their kayaks tipping over, etc. Tons of bacteria in the Chicago River and it makes sense: Chicago doesn’t disinfect their sewage discharge before it goes into the river.
“Besides – gators can survive;)”
Comparing a dinosaur that has basically survived with no need of evolution for the past 60 million years to us…yeah. I’d bet cockroaches could probably find a way to survive in the river too if they had to but that doesn’t mean I’m swimming in there!
“Err…the graffiti artist”
Er, vandal with spray paint.
“Tons of bacteria in the Chicago River and it makes sense: Chicago doesn’t disinfect their sewage discharge before it goes into the river.”
Exposure to bacteria is be very important and often helps boost your immune system.
it is lovely to glide past the huge sign talking about the thousands of gallons of raw sewage dumped in each day. then watch a condom and dead rat float past…
“Chicago doesn’t disinfect their sewage discharge before it goes into the river.”
“raw sewage dumped in each day”
Different beast from the actually daily dumps, but Bob will point to MWRD stats to show it’s more common than I’m implying. Still, it is definitely less than “daily” that “raw” sewage goes into the river.
“Er, vandal with spray paint.”
Don’t want to have the Groove wailing.
“Exposure to bacteria is be very important and often helps boost your immune system.”
Clio I’d bet we could muster up a “clio goes swimming in the Chicago River” for charity event among us CC regulars. I’d be the first to donate–I’d put in $20.
“Still, it is definitely less than “daily” that “raw” sewage goes into the river.”
Technicalities make it not true, but the net effect is the same. Never is “raw sewage” dumped in intentionally–instead its treated but not disinfected sewage.
However during CSO (combined sewer overflow) events when we get a lot of rain its often “raw” stormwater mixed in with the sewage. Which is where the various disgusting artifacts come from–its whatever comes in off the sewer pipes.
anon – not commenting on the accuracy of the HUGE sign, just saying it’s not somethign I like to think about.
“Er, vandal with spray paint.”
Don’t want to have the Groove wailing.”
as a grown up now, to me it is a vandal with spray paint.
hypocrite? yes!
Yes, think of all the happiness!
“anon – not commenting on the accuracy of the HUGE sign, just saying it’s not somethign I like to think about.”
3 parts to my pointing that out:
1. give you some limited comfort and/or more accurate facts (maybe effective)
2. draw a MWRD/CSO comment from Bob (check)
3. draw a “quoting stats from MWRD” dismissive comment from JMM (pending)
For anyone considering swimming in the Chicago River, I offer the following anecdote – my brother once went water skiing at some event in the East River after receiving multiple assurances from his friends that it was safe. He hit his leg on one of the skis when he fell and sustained a small cut. Two days later he was in the ER with an amoeba that caused him to defecate blood and had he not received treatment immediately, he would be walking around with a colostomy bag today. Consider that before you (a) engage in activities in rivers near major urban areas or (b) vote Democrat.
“Consider that before you … vote Democrat.”
Which D has come out in support of amoebal rights?
Or was “amoeba” a metaphor for Chuck Rangel?
which R has been pro-environmental or came out with an environmental restoration plan?
“after receiving multiple assurances from his friends that it was safe.”
1)Friend: Hey, BobBrauh, its totally safe, dude (takes a swig of Natty Ice). BUUUURP!
2) Bob: runs to PC to actually find information himself.
Permabear, that is terrible and bad luck. I guess swimming/running and any athletic endeavor is wrought with danger. However, you can’t live in a bubble.
not really buying into this.a alot of the people that are losing their home are planning to move back in with their parents.known a few people this has happened to.
“a alot of the people that are losing their home are planning to move back in with their parents.”
uhhh….you are kidding, right? they may be PLANNING on moving back in with their parents, but that arrangement will not last long. Once you have been away, it is virtually impossible to get used to living with your parents for more than a month or two. After that time period, they will probably do ANYTHING (turning tricks, drug dealing) to scrounge up enough money to rent a place!!!
“uhhh….you are kidding, right? they may be PLANNING on moving back in with their parents, but that arrangement will not last long. Once you have been away, it is virtually impossible to get used to living with your parents for more than a month or two. After that time period, they will probably do ANYTHING (turning tricks, drug dealing) to scrounge up enough money to rent a place!!!”
I just saw an episode of that new reality show called Fairy Jobmother about the British woman who tries to help American families where they have been out of work for a long time. In this episode, the husband/wife were in their late 30s or early 40s and had lost their house to foreclosure after both of them had been laid off (the wife had been making $200k a year in interior design in California. She admitted they saved none of it during the good years.) Anyway- they had 3 kids and moved in with the parents who still owned the family house.
2 years later- they were still there- both still jobless and were still living off the parents (who were stressed beyond belief and wanted them to simply move out.) They showed NO inclination to do so.
you have to remember,clio,some of the little people may not be as financially fortunate as you are.
jw, i’m not saying that everyone can afford to rent a castle – all I am saying is that anyone who has owned a home almost certainly could afford to rent a place. If they don’t WANT to because they want to save money, etc. that is another story, but don’t give me this big sob story about how they HAVE to move in with their parents. Everyone has choices….. (remember that these people are folk that used to own a home so their income HAS to be over 40-50k). Also, I am not being insensitive – I just hate when people exaggerate their misfortunes. I could do the same and start crying about how my mortgage payments on my properties are over 25k/month but neglect to tell you that I have a significant amount of equity in those properties and that most are rented. Sorry, I just hate liars/exaggerators.
Joblessness is a big reason for moving back home. Divorced women with kids, who were previously SAHM’s, often have to move in with family til thay can get on their own, too.
At some point with some of these folks, after not working for a year or two, hopelessness sets in, and then all bets are off when it comes to them making rational “choices”, clio.