<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Boomerang renters and vacant apartments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yochicago.com/boomerang-renters-and-vacant-apartments/12928/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yochicago.com/boomerang-renters-and-vacant-apartments/12928/</link>
	<description>New homes, apartments and condos for sale and rent in Chicago</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:09:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe Zekas</title>
		<link>http://yochicago.com/boomerang-renters-and-vacant-apartments/12928/comment-page-1/#comment-47825</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Zekas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yochicago.com/?p=12928#comment-47825</guid>
		<description>js,

Double-check your source. There&#039;s no way that average household size is now 1.6, either locally or natonally. 

Common sense alone tells you that – a change of that magnitude would have required a 69% increase in the number of occupied housing units, even if there had been no population increase.

In 2000, for example, the City of Chicago had a population of 2,896,016, and 1,061,928 households for an average household size of 2.7. A reduction in the household size to 1.6 translates to an increase of about 730,000 housing units assuming no population change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>js,</p>
<p>Double-check your source. There&#8217;s no way that average household size is now 1.6, either locally or natonally. </p>
<p>Common sense alone tells you that – a change of that magnitude would have required a 69% increase in the number of occupied housing units, even if there had been no population increase.</p>
<p>In 2000, for example, the City of Chicago had a population of 2,896,016, and 1,061,928 households for an average household size of 2.7. A reduction in the household size to 1.6 translates to an increase of about 730,000 housing units assuming no population change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Rojas</title>
		<link>http://yochicago.com/boomerang-renters-and-vacant-apartments/12928/comment-page-1/#comment-47721</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Rojas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yochicago.com/?p=12928#comment-47721</guid>
		<description>js,
I have no idea if the stats you point out actually affect housing demand. But, I look at that number of 1.6 people in households-combined with a growing U.S. population-and think there was a reflection of MORE demand for individual housing in 2007 as less people were packing into one aprtament, house etc...

If more people move &quot;back home&quot; now, number of people per household should go UP (which would decrease demand for extra housing units).  Maybe this is what you meant.

Then you have my wife and I adding number of persons in our household at an alarming rate, creating demand for another home.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>js,<br />
I have no idea if the stats you point out actually affect housing demand. But, I look at that number of 1.6 people in households-combined with a growing U.S. population-and think there was a reflection of MORE demand for individual housing in 2007 as less people were packing into one aprtament, house etc&#8230;</p>
<p>If more people move &#8220;back home&#8221; now, number of people per household should go UP (which would decrease demand for extra housing units).  Maybe this is what you meant.</p>
<p>Then you have my wife and I adding number of persons in our household at an alarming rate, creating demand for another home.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: js</title>
		<link>http://yochicago.com/boomerang-renters-and-vacant-apartments/12928/comment-page-1/#comment-47717</link>
		<dc:creator>js</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yochicago.com/?p=12928#comment-47717</guid>
		<description>I believe the stat goes:  20yrs ago there were 2.7 people per household... in 2007 there were 1.6 people per household... the demand can continue to go away...  for a long time.  and as prices keep on slipping and rents keep coming down, there&#039;s no incentive to buy...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe the stat goes:  20yrs ago there were 2.7 people per household&#8230; in 2007 there were 1.6 people per household&#8230; the demand can continue to go away&#8230;  for a long time.  and as prices keep on slipping and rents keep coming down, there&#8217;s no incentive to buy&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://yochicago.com/boomerang-renters-and-vacant-apartments/12928/comment-page-1/#comment-47713</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yochicago.com/?p=12928#comment-47713</guid>
		<description>Perhaps, if we take a little bit longer view of the situation, having a large group of twenty somethings living at home for a year or so will allow them to save up for a down payment and then enter the real estate market as first time buyers in a year or two.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps, if we take a little bit longer view of the situation, having a large group of twenty somethings living at home for a year or so will allow them to save up for a down payment and then enter the real estate market as first time buyers in a year or two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
