TerraVue / Markets / Chicago, IL
Over the past 20 years, Chicago home prices have risen 2.06% a year; over the past three, 5.44%. TerraVue's forward estimate, which weights both, is 3.42%. That is 0.60pp below the national average, which matters more the longer you hold.
Appreciation is only one side of the buy-vs-rent question, but it's the side people guess at most badly. At the forward estimate of 3.42% a year, a home in Chicago would gain roughly 40% in value over a decade — before any of the costs that actually decide the question: closing costs, maintenance, property tax, the mortgage interest you'd pay, and what your down payment would have earned invested instead.
Worth being explicit about what that estimate is: it blends the 20-year record (2.06%) with the last three years (5.44%), so a market in a sharp recent run-up or correction lands between the two rather than at either extreme. It is an estimate, not a forecast anyone can guarantee — which is exactly why TerraVue simulates a range of outcomes instead of quoting one number.
Rent is the other side. At a median of $1,810, the yearly rent bill in Chicago is about $21,720. Whether buying beats that depends almost entirely on the price you'd pay and how long you'd stay — which is what the simulator is for.
This page describes the Chicago market as a whole. Whether buying beats renting depends on the price you'd pay, your down payment, and how long you'd stay — TerraVue simulates about 1,000 market scenarios on those inputs and returns the probability, not a single guessed number. It'll start with 60629's real appreciation and rent already loaded.
Analyze a property free →Averages hide a lot. Across Chicago's 49 ZIP codes, long-run appreciation ranges from -2.54% to 6.89% a year — a spread of 9.4 percentage points. Over a 10-year hold, that difference compounds into a substantially different outcome for two buyers in the same city.
| ZIP | Appreciation/yr | Recent 3yr | Rent | Bachelor's+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60636 | 6.89% | 12.27% | $1,527 | 10% |
| 60621 | 6.87% | 13.89% | $1,553 | 14% |
| 60657 | 5.35% | 8.54% | $2,444 | 86% |
| 60660 | 5.27% | 8.91% | $1,850 | 55% |
| 60644 | 5.09% | 9.61% | $1,359 | 10% |
| 60624 | 4.87% | 8.16% | $1,641 | 13% |
| 60622 | 4.78% | 7.19% | $2,542 | 73% |
| 60607 | 4.63% | 6.68% | $2,917 | 79% |
| 60610 | 4.47% | 5.64% | $2,768 | 79% |
| 60625 | 4.29% | 7.13% | $1,942 | 53% |
| 60619 | 4.17% | 7.56% | $1,332 | 27% |
| 60647 | 3.95% | 4.97% | $2,361 | 60% |
| 60645 | 3.91% | 7.14% | $1,810 | 45% |
| 60613 | 3.85% | 5.97% | $2,447 | 75% |
| 60651 | 3.82% | 5.78% | $1,676 | 15% |
| 60608 | 3.80% | 5.62% | $1,922 | 31% |
| 60637 | 3.75% | 6.47% | $1,799 | 36% |
| 60620 | 3.71% | 6.05% | $1,463 | 19% |
| 60618 | 3.67% | 5.08% | $2,203 | 55% |
| 60626 | 3.60% | 6.14% | $1,752 | 53% |
| 60649 | 3.48% | 6.26% | $1,398 | 25% |
| 60652 | 3.45% | 5.85% | $1,994 | 20% |
| 60018 | 3.32% | 6.53% | $1,122 | 26% |
| 60609 | 3.30% | 5.14% | $1,611 | 18% |
| 60633 | 3.23% | 5.22% | $2,075 | 16% |
| 60629 | 3.23% | 5.82% | $1,439 | 14% |
| 60623 | 3.19% | 4.79% | $1,543 | 13% |
| 60628 | 3.12% | 4.86% | $1,547 | 22% |
| 60639 | 3.09% | 5.47% | $1,588 | 15% |
| 60653 | 3.00% | 4.27% | $1,980 | 38% |
| 60642 | 2.98% | 4.26% | $2,691 | 77% |
| 60630 | 2.95% | 5.16% | $1,741 | 44% |
| 60656 | 2.91% | 5.64% | $1,670 | 41% |
| 60634 | 2.88% | 5.50% | $1,889 | 26% |
| 60640 | 2.86% | 3.16% | $1,996 | 62% |
| 60659 | 2.84% | 5.23% | $1,944 | 39% |
| 60632 | 2.82% | 4.98% | $1,550 | 13% |
| 60612 | 2.81% | 3.47% | $2,448 | 40% |
| 60655 | 2.79% | 4.61% | $1,795 | 47% |
| 60641 | 2.75% | 4.52% | $1,710 | 34% |
| 60615 | 2.61% | 3.18% | $2,057 | 62% |
| 60638 | 2.57% | 4.26% | $1,644 | 24% |
| 60617 | 2.56% | 4.02% | $1,576 | 20% |
| 60631 | 2.55% | 4.68% | $1,767 | 51% |
| 60646 | 2.43% | 4.45% | $1,935 | 55% |
| 60614 | 2.40% | 3.40% | $2,762 | 86% |
| 60643 | 2.32% | 3.51% | $2,315 | 39% |
| 60616 | 1.87% | 2.04% | $1,866 | 51% |
| 60605 | -2.54% | -7.80% | $2,651 | 80% |
Sorted by long-run blended appreciation. Green is at least 0.5pp above the national average, red at least 0.5pp below; smaller gaps are left neutral. ZIPs shown as links have their own detail page.
Appreciation comes from the FHFA House Price Index — a repeat-sales index that tracks the same homes over time, which is why it isn't distorted by a change in the mix of what sold in a given year. TerraVue reads it at the ZIP level, back to 1975 where coverage allows.
The forward estimate blends 60% of the longest available look-back (20 years where available) with 40% of the most recent 3 years. Long-run history is the more reliable signal, but a market that has genuinely changed pace should not be ignored — the 60/40 split is the compromise, and it's the same figure TerraVue's simulation uses.
The national comparison is the population-weighted average of these same blended ZIP-level figures, so it compares like with like.
It depends on the price of the specific home and how long you'd stay. What the data settles is the market backdrop: over the past 20 years Chicago, IL home prices have risen about 2.06% a year, and TerraVue's forward estimate is 3.42% — below the national average of 4.02% — against a median rent near $1,810. TerraVue runs about 1,000 scenarios on a specific price to return the probability that buying beats renting, plus the breakeven year.
Over the past 20 years, about 2.06% a year; over the past three, 5.44%. TerraVue's forward estimate blends the two at 3.42%. All of it comes from FHFA repeat-sales data across 49 ZIP codes, and individual ZIPs range from -2.54% to 6.89% on that same forward basis.
60636 at 6.89% a year, versus 60605 at -2.54% — a spread of about 9.4 percentage points a year within the same city.
Around $1,810 — the median across the city's ZIP codes, from the Zillow Observed Rent Index (all homes).