Subscribe to get free notifications about new building projects, businesses, and zoning changes, in Chicago TOD bus route corridors in your inbox
Sign in to be able to add this Place to one of your lists
We have a renderings, news, and documents gallery for locations in this Place
Filter by Property Class (2017)
Filter by Property Class (2014)
Filter by Zoning
Filter by Lot Area
Upgrade to view & download all data
The full view of parcels and property taxes within Chicago TOD bus route corridors are for Cityscape Pro members only.
Notes about our property data
Use one of the tools buttons to see more data. Many properties don't have information about property owners. This is because the properties are non-taxable (tax exempt) and thus the tax billing name & address isn't included in the source data (Cook County Assessor). Building age data is not always reliable. This feature was supported by the Metropolitan Planning Council.
You can purchase all of our Cook County data in the Map & Data Store.
Data update schedule
Property information is updated twice a year; tax and property classification information is updated after the second tax bill goes out (mid summer), and assessment information is updated when a triad is re-assessed (varies based on location).
by permits pulled in the last 60 days
by permits pulled in the last 60 days
by permits pulled in the last 60 days
You're free to use our static map of Chicago TOD bus route corridors, but please attribute Chicago Cityscape and link to this page.
The search area of Chicago TOD bus route corridors is 48.08 square miles. The length of Chicago TOD bus route corridors is 113.60 miles.
No one is notified
Want to know what you're allowed to build in the Chicago TOD bus route corridors? Order a Zoning Report instantly from MAP Strategies.
View and download the zoning map
Submarket 1 consists primarily of urban areas concentrated on the south and west sides of the City of Chicago, but also includes parts of Waukegan, Joliet, and south suburban Cook County. These communities are medium density with many 2–4 flats built before 1940. High rates of vacancy, foreclosures, and distressed sales in Submarket 1 may undercut the quality of existing homes. Significant population loss in Submarket 1 communities is likely both a cause and an effect of local levels of property distress. Nonetheless, Submarket 1 has good access to the regional transportation network, which helps keep transportation costs low. Despite low housing values and costs, declining incomes among Submarket 1 households have led to increased rates of cost burden. Educational attainment levels are low, and households in this submarket are lower income with the largest income declines of any of the submarkets. The submarket has experienced high unemployment, which has increased over time. Communities in this submarket are also aging, now with a greater share of older adults and fewer children under 15.
Submarket 2 consists of urban and suburban homes built before 1940 in parts of Chicago, Aurora, Elgin, Joliet, and Waukegan. Declining incomes likely influence the high and increasing levels of cost burden. Low transportation costs moderate concerns about high levels of cost burden. Many households rent, but comparatively fewer live in subsidized units than in submarket 1. The submarket has higher levels of foreclosure activity, but moderate levels of vacancy. Mortgage investment is low but cash sales are high, which when combined with the high foreclosure rates and low vacancy rates, points to the transitioning of homes from owners to renters. The larger households in submarket 2 frequently have children under the age of 15.
The majority of submarket 3 falls within the boundaries of Chicago, as well as parts of Oak Park and Evanston and can generally be characterized as a strong urban market. High and growing incomes generally mitigate high and increasing home prices and rents, resulting in lower levels of cost burden. Submarket 3 has the lowest transportation costs of any submarket. The housing stock can be characterized as high density urban, primarily consisting of older homes. While many residents of this submarket rent, only in submarket 3 did the share of households renting decline. Lower levels of subsidized housing are found in this submarket. Submarket 3 has a very active housing market with high levels of mortgage activity, turnover, and low vacancy. There are low levels of foreclosure activity and cash sales. The households in this submarket are younger, middle and higher income, with high levels of educational attainment. Smaller households, often 1-person, with few children fit the submarket’s high-density design. Submarket 3 was the only submarket to see an increase in median household income.
Submarket 4 is comprised of low-density neighborhoods built between World War II and 1959. Housing is mostly owner-occupied, and very little housing is subsidized for low- and moderate-income families. Despite some foreclosures and distressed sales, the private market continues to function, with moderate levels of mortgage lending. The middle-income households that live in these areas struggle with increasing cost burden, due, in part, to higher transportation costs and declining incomes. The submarket has a moderate number of children and a growing older population (60+).
Submarket 5 is a predominantly suburban cluster with many similarities to Submarket 4, except that its housing stock is less dense and slightly newer (built between 1960 and 1979). This submarket has seen fairly substantial increases in housing cost burden, due to considerable declines in income and high transportation costs. Despite being largely owner occupied, there are high levels of renters and subsidized housing relative to other suburban submarkets. The submarket’s moderate levels of foreclosure activity and moderate to high levels of distressed and cash sales illustrate weak investment and market conditions. Submarket 5 is the only submarket with declining home prices. In regards to demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, this submarket primarily consists of moderate income households with lower levels of educational attainment. It can be characterized as a family area with a moderate share of children.
Submarket 6 is the most affluent submarket in the region. Despite high home prices and rents, housing cost burden is low due to high incomes. This submarket shares the trait of high transportation costs with other suburban submarkets. The housing stock can be characterized as mostly single-family homes with a mix of both older and newer housing. This largely owner-occupied submarket includes low levels of subsidized housing. Low foreclosure and vacancy levels and a high mortgage activity level have generated a strong housing market. The submarket is composed of mostly highly educated households, with a high share of 2 to 4 person households, moderate levels of children, and the highest increase in people age 60 and over.
Rapid population growth since 2000 defines this submarket. In fact, it is the fastest growing of all eight segments tracked in this study. Submarket 7 primarily consists of exurbs in McHenry, Kane, Kendall and Will Counties but also includes the downtown core of Chicago. The housing stock in the exurbs is primarily low density and has few rental units. Housing in Chicago’s downtown core is a mix of high rise owner-occupied and rental units. The shared traits of recent growth and expansion help to define this submarket, but there are big variations in data. High transportation costs in the fringe areas of the submarket contrast with the low transportation costs found in the core of Chicago. Despite strong market conditions before 2008, moderate levels of lending, foreclosure activity, and distressed sales are present in the exurbs. Overall, the submarket typically consists of middle to higher income households with children and a relatively high level of educational attainment.
There are eight submarkets, or clusters of similar housing issues and neighborhood characteristics. The "cluster" information is from the Regional Housing Solutions and is based on data from the American Community Survey, collected in 2009-2013, and is a collaboration among CMAP, Institute for Housing Studies, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, and Metropolitan Planning Council.
Sign up for Cityscape Pro or Cityscape Permits to see all of the building projects