In discussing proposed ordinances to protect renters in Chicago, the Chicago Tribune contrasts renting in Chicago and New York City:

And New York has less of a tradition of ownership.

Most Manhattanites have traded the advantages of owning their own place for a life in a great city. Chicago, historically, has not required that trade-off but has offered both.

You can rent an apartment until you can save enough to afford to buy a condo and then maybe a small home as your family grows. Or you can use the rent you get from one apartment in a two-flat to cover a mortgage and live upstairs yourself.

Our big advantage over cities like New York, you might say.

I wonder about these claims. Here is why:

1. Both cities have different neighborhoods or boroughs. This is part of who they are: the cities annexed neighborhoods and communities as they grew and these different places have unique histories. Both have sizable central business districts. Both have residential neighborhoods. Both have areas with lots of rented units, other areas with more homeownership.
2. The comparison to Manhattan seems to be doing a lot in the argument. Manhattan has a lot of residents – roughly 1.6 million – but the borough accounts for less than 20% of New York City’s population. Manhattan is expensive but it is not the same as other parts of the city, even if housing is expensive in New York City and the region overall compared to many other places in the United States.
3. The desire for homeownership is related to but different from the ability to purchase a home. Do people in New York City want to rent long-term or is that what is more available? How do people in New York and Chicago narrate their desired paths and then what is possible?
4. The editorial hints at an ongoing comparisons of Chicago to New York.