Chicago's identity crisis: Who's leaving and who's staying
A new global report suggests Chicago is in the midst of an identity crisis.
The big picture: When asked what they love about the city, people's answers were split by how long they've lived here, according to City Pulse 2025: The Magnetic City from Gensler Research Institute, an arm of the design firm that has built several projects in Chicago.
Some say they would grow old here while others were making moving truck reservations.
Methodology: Gensler surveyed 33,000 anonymous urban residents in 65 global cities in 2024, including over 500 people in Chicago.
By the numbers: Residents who have been here fewer than 10 years show a 13% likelihood of leaving compared with those living in other major cities.
They are 16% more likely to leave than someone who's been here for more than a decade.
Older adults surveyed were more concerned about the city's future.
Zoom out: Chicagoans were above the national average in saying their city is a strong place to socialize and find connections. They also said walkability was a huge positive, higher than in most cities.
The biggest factors in staying in a city are cost of living, level of crime, healthcare costs, job opportunities and taxes.
Respondents said the city is a good place to grow old, showing confidence in affordability, aging and safety.
Yes, but: Some were concerned that the city's reputation and identity is getting worse.
Zoom in: The report comes days after U.S. News & World Report ranked Illinois toward the bottom of its latest best states ranking.
Also, the newly passed state budget calls for more taxes, while Cook County residents are seeing increases to their property taxes and utility bills.
The other side: Chicago has been named "Best Big City in the U.S." by Condé Nast Traveler for eight straight years.
And our cost of living and tax burdens are less than in Los Angeles and New York City and other global cities.
What they're saying: Gensler Chicago's Brian Vitale sees the results as a chance to keep Chicagoans interested in the city. "Chicagoans clearly feel the magic of their city, and that's something to build on," Vitale tells Axios.
"We can turn these strengths into lasting experiences by continuing to create neighborhoods that are dynamic, inclusive and welcoming at every stage of life."
Tell us Chicagoans: Should you stay or should you go? We'll publish results later in the week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Brandon Johnson turns to taxing groceries
Mayor Brandon Johnson has positioned himself as a champion of working families and the poor. But his messaging is getting complicated as it collides with the city's difficult fiscal reality. 'You all know my position. The ultra-rich continue to get away with not having to put more skin in the game,' he said at a Tuesday news conference. But at the same time, Johnson is pushing for a grocery tax that will disproportionately hurt families at the checkout line as they try to put food on the table. His administration is taking an obfuscational messaging approach to explain its position. Johnson insists this isn't a new tax — it's merely a local continuation of a state tax being phased out. But for struggling families, the semantics won't matter. Higher grocery prices are higher grocery prices. '(The grocery tax) was a function that the state of Illinois decided to relinquish, and leave it to the cities to collect the tax,' Johnson said earlier this week. 'So we're not creating a grocery tax, we're just creating a process by which we can collect it.' That's some twisty logic, to say the least. A tax is a tax even when a mayor calls it a 'function.' It's true that when Gov. JB Pritzker ended the state's 1% grocery tax, he left the door open for cities to collect their own — being as state grocery tax revenues flow to municipalities, not state coffers. Chicago stands to lose $80 million in revenue from the change — at a time when it's already facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. But the budget problem is not just Springfield's doing. It's a reflection of City Hall's unwillingness to rein in spending and make hard choices. And now, instead of leading with reforms, the mayor is reaching for the easiest — and most regressive — option on the shelf. The mayor has put himself in a corner on this one. If his goal is tax fairness, it's hard to see how making food more expensive for struggling Chicagoans fits the bill. In a better world, Chicagoans would be getting a small break at the grocery store. Pritzker has acknowledged the regressive nature of the grocery tax and its impact on families. 'Even with inflation cooling off every dollar counts, so I'm proud we're doing what we can to make trips to the grocery store a little easier,' he said in 2024 after eliminating the statewide grocery tax. We have said much the same, noting that the grocery tax does not need to be there, especially since its absence might contribute in some small way to motivating people to cook healthy meals at home rather than stopping at the local fast-food outlet. In a few months, the working group Johnson convened to explore budget cuts and revenue options for addressing the city's structural budget challenges is expected to share its preliminary recommendations, ahead of the mayor's budget proposal later this year. We're interested to see what the group comes back with — hopefully sooner rather than later. We're aware that the city's finances are so grim there may be no choice but to add back the grocery 'function,' or tax. We'll leave our final view on that until we see a fuller picture of ideas. Until now, the mayor's efforts to introduce widespread new revenue sources have been met with stiff opposition and a lack of public support. First, his flagship fiscal proposal, a real estate transfer tax hike dubbed 'Bring Chicago Home,' failed, a rude awakening that Johnson's election was not a mandate for sweeping new tax hikes. Next, an attempt to build support for a $300 million property tax hike fizzled out amid understandable public resistance and pushback from aldermen. We opposed both ideas. We say these outcomes are a reflection of the general sentiment among Chicagoans, most of whom are sick to death of being asked for more as the city gives them more of the same, often worse, public services. The mayor's grocery tax push will certainly be met with resentment. If he wants to make it happen, the grocery tax will need to be adopted as an ordinance by City Council and submitted to the state by Oct. 1 in order for the tax to be imposed beginning Jan. 1, according to the Illinois Municipal League. Even Johnson's supporters may struggle to square this proposal with his progressive ideals. It's hard to claim you're standing with working families while taxing their daily bread. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Chicago Tribune
10 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Brandon Johnson turns to taxing groceries
Mayor Brandon Johnson has positioned himself as a champion of working families and the poor. But his messaging is getting complicated as it collides with the city's difficult fiscal reality. 'You all know my position. The ultra-rich continue to get away with not having to put more skin in the game,' he said at a Tuesday news conference. But at the same time, Johnson is pushing for a grocery tax that will disproportionately hurt families at the checkout line as they try to put food on the table. His administration is taking an obfuscational messaging approach to explain its position. Johnson insists this isn't a new tax — it's merely a local of a state tax being phased out. But for struggling families, the semantics won't matter. Higher grocery prices are higher grocery prices. '(The grocery tax) was a function that the state of Illinois decided to relinquish, and leave it to the cities to collect the tax,' Johnson said earlier this week. 'So we're not creating a grocery tax, we're just creating a process by which we can collect it.' That's some twisty logic, to say the least. A tax is a tax even when a mayor calls it a 'function.' It's true that when Gov. JB Pritzker ended the state's 1% grocery tax, he left the door open for cities to collect their own — being as state grocery tax revenues flow to municipalities, not state coffers. Chicago stands to lose $80 million in revenue from the change — at a time when it's already facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. But the budget problem is not just Springfield's doing. It's a reflection of City Hall's unwillingness to rein in spending and make hard choices. And now, instead of leading with reforms, the mayor is reaching for the easiest — and most regressive — option on the shelf. The mayor has put himself in a corner on this one. If his goal is tax fairness, it's hard to see how making food more expensive for struggling Chicagoans fits the bill. In a better world, Chicagoans would be getting a small break at the grocery store. Pritzker has acknowledged the regressive nature of the grocery tax and its impact on families. 'Even with inflation cooling off every dollar counts, so I'm proud we're doing what we can to make trips to the grocery store a little easier,' he said in 2024 after eliminating the statewide grocery tax. We have said much the same, noting that the grocery tax does not need to be there, especially since its absence might contribute in some small way to motivating people to cook healthy meals at home rather than stopping at the local fast-food outlet. In a few months, the working group Johnson convened to explore budget cuts and revenue options for addressing the city's structural budget challenges is expected to share its preliminary recommendations, ahead of the mayor's budget proposal later this year. We're interested to see what the group comes back with — hopefully sooner rather than later. We're aware that the city's finances are so grim there may be no choice but to add back the grocery 'function,' or tax. We'll leave our final view on that until we see a fuller picture of ideas. Until now, the mayor's efforts to introduce widespread new revenue sources have been met with stiff opposition and a lack of public support. First, his flagship fiscal proposal, a real estate transfer tax hike dubbed 'Bring Chicago Home,' failed, a rude awakening that Johnson's election was not a mandate for sweeping new tax hikes. Next, an attempt to build support for a $300 million property tax hike fizzled out amid understandable public resistance and pushback from aldermen. We opposed both ideas. We say these outcomes are a reflection of the general sentiment among Chicagoans, most of whom are sick to death of being asked for more as the city gives them more of the same, often worse, public services. The mayor's grocery tax push will certainly be met with resentment. If he wants to make it happen, the grocery tax will need to be adopted as an ordinance by City Council and submitted to the state by Oct. 1 in order for the tax to be imposed beginning Jan. 1, according to the Illinois Municipal League. Even Johnson's supporters may struggle to square this proposal with his progressive ideals. It's hard to claim you're standing with working families while taxing their daily bread.
Indianapolis Star
10 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana's property tax reform delivers relief while preserving local growth
Indiana's 2024 elections sent a message to leaders that Hoosiers across the state were concerned about getting squeezed out of their homes by skyrocketing property taxes. The angst I heard talking to members of our community came, of course, with an acknowledgement that rising taxes were a result of increased home values, but a lack of transparency around home assessments and some frustration with a seemingly endless chain of school referenda made it clear that many Hoosiers were demanding relief. Heading into the 2025 legislative session, it surprised no one that this issue was front and center for lawmakers. After months of negotiations and input from residents, the Indiana General Assembly delivered one of the most significant changes to local taxation we have seen in nearly two decades. No one got exactly what they wanted — it would take you three minutes on social media to know that — but the result is a bill that provides immediate relief to nearly every Hoosier and, when fully implemented, allows homeowners to deduct two-thirds of their assessed value to lower their property tax bill while reining in $54 billion in local government debt. We transformed some tax deductions into tax credits, a change that will result in lower actual tax bills for thousands of taxpayers; moved school referendums to even-year general election ballots to ensure better participation; and lowered the amount of local income taxes governments can collect by $1.9 billion. In short, while changes to tax policy can be complicated, Senate Enrolled Act 1 not only gives Hoosier homeowners tax relief today, but also moves Indiana to a fairer, simpler and more balanced local tax system in the near future. One of my goals as a state legislator is to ensure the voices of growing communities are represented in these debates. It was important that we find a balance between needed relief and the resources upon which communities like mine have come to rely, resources that represent critical investments in quality of life, amenities, infrastructure and key services. Carmel and Westfield, the cities I represent at the Statehouse, have enjoyed forward-thinking, fiscally responsible leadership for years. The results are demonstrative. Carmel, for example, was ranked No. 2 on the list of the Best Places to Live in 2025 by Livability & U.S. News, and both communities are consistently ranked among the best in the country. Indiana, moreover, is now ranked 7th nationally for net in-migration, with the high-earning, talented individuals Indiana needs flocking to cities in Hamilton County. That's not an accident. The strategies that Carmel and Westfield have implemented should be celebrated and enhanced by the policies coming from the Statehouse. That balance was not easy to strike and local governments and schools will, no doubt, be faced with difficult decisions in the future. But SEA 1 represents much-needed reform to a convoluted property tax system that disincentivizes these hard decisions today at taxpayers' expense. Even with these changes, schools in my district will receive more money from property taxes over the next three years, and the new state budget increases tuition support for students. I am proud of the work we did this session on this issue, and I am equally grateful for the perspectives, insights, and counsel shared by our incredible local leaders who helped legislators avoid harmful unintended consequences. As with any bill this complex, property tax reform will remain a topic of discussion in the General Assembly, and we will be making tweaks to the law moving forward. But SEA 1 is a strong step forward to helping homeowners while improving accountability in local government spending.
