The Real Finds Podcast, Episode 96: State of the Chicagoland Commercial Real Estate Market, Q2 2026
A quarterly market analysis presented by Gordon Lamphere, J.D., broker, advisor, and vice president at Van Vlissingen and Co. Transcript edited for clarity.
About eighteen months ago, everyone in this market, investors, occupiers, lenders, developers, was in a holding pattern. They were waiting on rates, waiting on the trade situation, waiting to see what the political environment would do to the cost of getting a project done. They were waiting. But that phase is over. Not because the uncertainty went away, it didn’t. Tariffs on steel and aluminum were real and they stuck. Construction labor costs in Chicago have skyrocketed. Immigration policy has tightened, particularly in many of the trades, and that’s showing up on bid prices and project timelines right now. The geopolitical backdrop has not settled. None of it is resolved cleanly, but the market stopped waiting anyway, especially for short-term transactions. Leases are getting signed. Capital is moving, slowly, but still moving. Transactions are happening, deals are getting done right now, and they’re being priced for a world that is permanently more expensive to build in, permanently more selective about where institutional capital goes, and permanently more divided between assets that matter and assets that don’t.
So here is what that divided market looks like, the actual aggregated data. Our Real Finds RFP index shows Chicago CBD office vacancy at approximately 26.5 percent, with average asking rents near forty-five dollars a square foot and cap rates sitting around eight percent. Industrial vacancy across the broader Chicagoland metro area is running around 5.5 to 6.5 percent, with the O’Hare and Elk Grove corridor specifically under around two percent, which has barely moved in over a year. That is very robust against national averages, which are running north of around seven percent. Multifamily vacancy across Chicagoland is around 4.7 percent, with average effective rents near twenty-three hundred dollars a month, and only about 9,300 units, roughly 1.6 percent of existing inventory, under construction right now. Retail vacancy is sitting around 5.5 percent, with average rent growth around 2.5 percent and cap rates near six.
Four asset classes, four completely different markets. The cap rate spread alone tells the whole story: eight percent for office, 5.5 percent for industrial, 5.5 percent for multifamily, and six to six and a half for retail. Investors are pricing those four asset classes as if they are four completely different cities, because in terms of risk and investor conviction, they essentially are. If you’re reading any single headline as the Chicago market story, you’re already behind. What I want to do today is show you what is actually happening on the ground in Chicagoland, not directionally but specifically: where the opportunity has shifted, where the risk is newer than most people realize, and where we think the next twelve to twenty-four months gets genuinely interesting.
I’m Gordon Lamphere, a broker, advisor, and vice president at Van Vlissingen and Co. We are on pace this year to do meaningful transaction volume, more than last year, which was itself a great year. That volume gives us a view of what is actually happening in the market and what isn’t. Our RFP index, our aggregated Chicagoland CRE data set at rfp.vvco.com, gives us the framework to pressure-test what we’re seeing in our deals against what the broader market is doing.
How We Know What We Know: The RFP Index
Before we go asset class by asset class, I want to spend a few minutes on how we know what we know, because in a market environment this uncertain, the quality of your data matters more than ever. We built the RFP index, Chicagoland’s commercial real estate index, because we got tired of relying on any single source. Every brokerage, CoStar, the Cook County government, they all publish their own reports, and if you pull all those reports on the same market for the same quarter, you often find disagreements, sometimes a little, sometimes enough to change your underwriting and shape a deal.
Here’s a concrete example of why that matters. Take industrial vacancy in the O’Hare and Elk Grove corridor, one of the most tracked submarkets in Greater Chicagoland. Depending on which report you read and how they define their inventory, you can find numbers that are meaningfully different. Our index shows the O’Hare corridor vacancy at around 2.5 percent. That’s tight. But if you pick up a report pulling from a broader geographic definition, or mixing availability and vacancy figures, you might see something that reads several points higher and draws a completely different set of investment conclusions. Same market, same quarter, different answer. That disagreement is not because anyone is being dishonest; it’s because each firm is tracking a slightly different slice of inventory and using slightly different definitions. If you put them in the same analysis without knowing the difference, you’re going to have trouble drawing an accurate conclusion.
What the RFP index does is aggregate all the sources into a single, live-updating quarterly index using comparable data points for each metric. We are deliberate about what we include and exclude. We do not mix availability rates with vacancy rates. We do not include data outside the publication window; we’re not using a number from three quarters ago to fill a gap in the current quarter. We don’t let any one source dominate the output, and when sources disagree, we don’t pick a winner. We show a range and we use the aggregate. The result is something less exciting than any individual firm’s headline number, but more defensible. In an environment where you are making real capital decisions, accuracy matters more than a palatable headline. The index is public, it’s free, and you can find it at rfp.vvco.com. If you’re making an investment, leasing, or development decision in this market and you’re not using an aggregated data source, you’re working with a partial picture. We built this so you don’t have to.
The Macro Backdrop: Rates, Tariffs, and the Cost to Build
The interest rate environment has moved, not dramatically, but meaningfully. Directionally, we’re in a world where debt is more available than it was eighteen months ago. Market data suggests at least one rate cut might be on the table for 2026, but capital is still expensive relative to the decades that preceded it. The deals getting done are where current cash flow can actually service current debt. That sounds obvious, but it wasn’t always the case, particularly pre-2020. The era of buying on future rent growth assumptions is very much over. The deals clearing right now are clearing on in-place economics, and if the in-place math doesn’t work at today’s cost, the deal typically doesn’t work. That discipline shows up in transaction volume, still running below pre-pandemic peaks for most asset classes. Multifamily is showing the most meaningful recovery. Office transaction volume remains the most suppressed, held back by a wide bid-ask gap between buyers and sellers.
What has changed more dramatically than rates is the combined tariff, immigration, and geopolitical variable. I want to name this directly, because I think it’s an underweighted part of most commercial real estate conversations. Steel and aluminum tariffs have had a meaningful impact on the cost of getting buildings out of the ground. Electrical conduit and mechanical components are seeing additional pressure. Immigration enforcement has tightened the labor market in Chicago, particularly in several critical construction trades, which are among the most foreign-born-worker-intensive industries in the economy. The combined result is that Chicago construction costs are running significantly higher year over year. For multifamily construction, costs in some places are up over thirty percent from five years ago, and labor alone is up almost twenty percent over the same period. Those are not numbers you easily absorb with optimistic rent assumptions.
The practical implication is that new supply across almost every asset class is just harder to pencil, which is counterintuitively one of the most bullish facts in Chicago. When it becomes dramatically difficult to build new product, particularly in the post-2020 world, built product becomes much more valuable, and the competitive landscape for stabilized leased assets is materially more favorable for existing owners. There’s a tension here worth naming: that supply constraint is genuinely good for investors in existing Chicago assets, but it’s not good for the market in terms of housing affordability or the ability to meet occupier demand. Both are true.
The capital that is active right now is mostly equity-forward: family offices, private investors, and developers with existing relationships and equity reserves. These are buyers who are not dependent on aggressive debt assumptions and who have the patience to hold through continued uncertainty. Institutional capital is incredibly selective right now, returning in particular to multifamily, where Chicago’s supply and vacancy story is compelling enough that large allocators are looking past the macroeconomic noise. But it’s moving carefully, toward fundamentals, not stories, not pro formas built on assumptions.
Office: A Supply Story, Not Just a Demand Story
I want to be careful here, because the office market is still complex, still very split, and still carrying real distress in certain pockets. None of that distress has evaporated. But there is a fact in Chicago’s central business district right now that wasn’t true a year ago, and it substantially changes the conversation: prime office space is running out. Market data points to roughly three blocks of Class A space over a hundred thousand feet available in the CBD right now, one new office building scheduled for delivery in all of 2026, and after that nothing in the pipeline until 2029. That’s not a soft-market story, that’s a supply-constraint story, and it has real implications for how tenants and investors should think about the highest end of CBD office over the next twenty-four to thirty-six months. CBD leasing volume in 2025 came in at approximately 6.3 million square feet, up seven percent year over year, the strongest annual figure since 2019. That’s not a dead market.
Here’s the dynamic that matters most for the second half of 2026: a significant volume of CBD leases is rolling over into the back half of the year. Tenants who have been sitting in existing spaces, paying rents set in a completely different market, operating in build-outs designed for a pre-AI, pre-hybrid work world, are now being forced to decide. Some will renew, many will move, some will downsize. In a market where prime space is genuinely getting scarce, the tenants procrastinating on this decision are going to find themselves with fewer options and less leverage than they expect. Buildings that have invested in repositioning, upgrading lobbies, modern amenities, new HVAC, and genuine hospitality-level tenant experiences, are capturing tenants. The buildings that haven’t are losing them, in some cases permanently.
AI and office demand has moved from a macro conversation to a building-level reality. What we’re watching across transactions is that the requirements AI-adjacent companies and AI infrastructure teams bring to the office are very different from traditional office requirements: higher power density, more robust cooling and electrical infrastructure, fewer private offices, more collaborative and computation-adjacent spaces. These users are pulling toward buildings built or substantially renovated in the last decade, and pulling back very quickly from commodity product regardless of price point. It’s a flight to quality, and the gap between quality buildings and everything else is only going to get larger.
The suburban office picture is more varied, and I want to be honest without being dismissive. There are suburban submarkets, specifically corridors in Lake County and a number of select suburbs, where genuine occupier demand persists, companies with strong workforces and important geographic locations, and in many of those corridors office culture is still robust. Those companies are still transacting, and the repricing has created real value for tenants and disciplined investors there. But the bad news is that in many suburban office markets, vacancy continues to worsen, with a market average near twenty-seven percent. The suburban commodity office market is filled with aging product, undifferentiated locations, and below-average infrastructure, and the conversation there is increasingly about what comes next, not about office fundamentals. In some cases the most honest asset-level discussion is about alternative uses.
That distinction between repositionable trophy assets and functionally obsolete commodity office is exactly the bifurcation we examined in Sidley Austin’s 725 Randolph Signals More Office Trouble, and the conversion path for the losing end of that split is the subject of our conversation on the largest office-to-residential conversion in history.
If you’re an occupier, the window for maximum tenant leverage in Class A CBD space is narrowing. It’s not closing, but it’s narrowing. If your lease expires in the next eighteen to twenty-four months and you’re in the market for high-quality space, I’d start looking now. The concession packages available today, free rent, tenant improvement dollars, flexible term, may not be at these levels when prime inventory tightens further.
Industrial: Read Past the Headline
Industrial absorption in 2025 posted its slowest year since the Great Recession. That’s a big headline, and if you stop there, you walk away with the wrong conclusion. Here’s what’s actually happening. Class A industrial, which accounts for less than twenty percent of Chicagoland’s industrial inventory, recorded strong positive net absorption in 2025. The drag on the aggregate came from commodity space, particularly older, functionally obsolete buildings that tenants were vacating in favor of newer, better-located, better-powered alternatives. That’s not a weak industrial market; that’s a market telling you very clearly what occupiers value. Vacancy across the broader market is still near historic lows, the pipeline of new supply is constrained, partly because development economics got more difficult over the last year, and that supply constraint combined with durable occupier demand for distribution, e-commerce, and increasingly manufacturing keeps Chicago’s industrial fundamentals strong.
One of the more significant industrial demand drivers that was theoretical twelve to twenty-four months ago is now showing up in the market: reshoring and near-shoring. The tariff environment has changed the math on offshore production for a meaningful segment of the manufacturing market. Companies that had been running lean on global supply chains, relying on just-in-time inventory from overseas, have been reminded of what supply chain fragility looks like, and a portion of that manufacturing activity is moving back to the continental interior. Illinois screens well for advanced manufacturing for reasons not obvious from the outside: central geography, a strong legacy workforce and skilled trades, strong infrastructure, and a robust power grid. We might not be the Sun Belt, but we’re starting to see a transition into a substantial amount of manufacturing use, particularly manufacturing that requires stronger infrastructure and a more educated workforce.
Power access is becoming the primary differentiating characteristic between Class A industrial product and everything else. Manufacturing, data-adjacent logistics, advanced cold storage, EV charging, all of these users with meaningful power requirements need robust infrastructure, and the buildings that can deliver are getting absorbed first. Buildings that cannot are competing on price alone, a deteriorating position as new Class A supply prices them out. In practical terms, when we’re evaluating an industrial acquisition or helping a client compare sites, the utility infrastructure conversation now happens before the rent conversation. That shift in deal sequencing tells you a lot about where value is being created.
Power-first site selection is the throughline across our data-center conversations, from the fiber-and-latency angle with Bruce Garrison in The AI Real Estate Goldmine Everyone’s Missing to the generation side with Whitaker Irvin Jr. in Hydrogen, Data Centers, And The End Of Energy Poverty, and the broader industrial outlook with Chad Griffiths in Commercial Real Estate Doomers, Gurus, And Industrial Opportunity.
Finding an attractive development site inside the primary O’Hare and Elk Grove corridor is genuinely difficult right now. The sites that exist are expensive, often environmentally complex, and subject to significant community engagement. That difficulty is producing some of the most creative industrial redevelopment proposals in Chicagoland. We saw this with the Ford City Mall proposal, a development to replace a functionally obsolete mall on the Southwest Side with nearly a million square feet of warehouse space, a direct product of the infill industrial demand surge. Whether that specific project clears the political and community process remains to be seen, but it shows how much need there is for industrial infill and how differently people will try to solve that problem. There’s a huge divide between Class A industrial space and everything else, and it’s only going to widen. If you have an above-average power requirement, start the site search earlier than you think; power availability and utility upgrades can take twelve to twenty-four months, and lead times can leave you out in the cold.
Multifamily: The Tightest Supply Since 2012
Chicago multifamily is delivering fewer new units this year than at any point since 2012. Our projections put new deliveries below four thousand units, well below what the market would absorb under normal conditions. Put that against a vacancy rate directionally trending toward the high threes by year end, roughly two hundred basis points below the market’s long-term average, and what you get is a very landlord-friendly market, one that’s not likely to become more tenant-friendly anytime soon.
The national multifamily story in 2026 is dominated by Sun Belt oversupply, Austin, Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta, all markets where developers got extraordinarily aggressive in 2021 and 2022 and are now working through absorption consequences. Chicago is structurally completely different. It always was, and the delta between Chicago’s supply pipeline and those markets is wider now than it’s been. One of the more notable shifts over the last several months is the re-engagement of many of the largest institutional players. Not a flood, but a re-engagement. Family offices and private investors have been active all year, but now larger allocators are looking at the fundamentals, the supply-constrained nature of the market, low vacancy, durable rent growth, and affordability dynamics, and pushing into meaningful positions. Rents are running around twenty-three hundred dollars a month on average, up from about two thousand at the start of last year, with growth moderating toward the two percent range, which is directionally what a maturing, stabilizing, still-growing market looks like. That’s a very investable setup, particularly when supply is constrained.
Homeownership is still a challenge for many Chicagoans. The for-sale market has been constrained by lack of supply over the last decade, and with sub-four-percent mortgages locked in the past, we’re not seeing that inventory shake loose anytime soon. As a result, the rental market will likely remain robust over the next couple of years. The same construction cost environment making everyone nervous about development economics elsewhere is helping make Chicago even more landlord-friendly: build-out costs for multifamily are way more expensive than three years ago, driving up costs for ground-up and even retrofit development, so established landlords are seeing their value increase despite national trends going the other way. It’s an uncomfortable fact, but because we have a housing supply crisis and an affordability crisis, we have a robust multifamily market. That said, there will be a breaking point and real material political risk if the market remains this robust for multifamily investors in Chicago.
That affordability-versus-investability tension, and the reforms that could ease it, is the heart of our FIMBY framework for Chicagoland investors and our look at whether we can solve the housing crisis without new construction.
For investors, the window to get into stabilized Chicago multifamily at today’s pricing, before institutional capital reprices the market and before vacancy compresses further, is real. Cap rates have moved from where they were in 2022, and that basis improvement plus a tightening supply picture is a combination that does not persist indefinitely. Value-add multifamily in supply-constrained neighborhoods on the North Lakefront, the established Northwest Side, and Lake County corridors with genuine employment demand continues to offer real upside. For those looking at multifamily development, the construction cost environment makes new development selective at best; the projects that pencil have strong equity, established community relationships, and locations where rent levels justify current construction costs.
Retail: Better Than the Narrative
There was a real period in late 2025 when landlords and investors were genuinely nervous about tariff-driven consumer spending pressure. The concern was legitimate: if discretionary income contracted enough under higher prices on imported goods, retailers would feel it first and real estate would follow. Here’s what we actually saw. The impact was real but uneven, and the Chicagoland retail market, which came into this period with vacancy already relatively low and almost no new supply in the pipeline, absorbed the pressure better than most people expected. Grocery-anchored and necessity-based retail barely registered the turbulence. The traffic was there, the sales were there, the credit behind the leases generally held, and the market continued to price and transact as an income asset, not a recovery story. Even so, the scarcity of available space in primary Chicagoland retail corridors kept landlords from having to make dramatic concessions; there simply wasn’t enough vacancy to create a soft-market dynamic.
The more interesting retail story right now isn’t vacancy or rent growth, it’s the role ground-floor retail plays in larger mixed-use and infill redevelopment projects. Across the projects we’re working on and adjacent to, the right retail tenant mix, food, beverage, services, neighborhood-scale necessity, functions as a neighborhood activation tool for mixed-use residential and commercial projects. It’s not the economic driver of those projects, but it’s the community amenity that makes the residential components lease and the office above more desirable, and it gives the project a reason to exist in the neighborhood. The developers who treat that retail as an amenity and activator rather than a primary income stream are doing a better job designing and leasing projects that are actually getting financed. Grocery-anchored centers in established Chicagoland demographics continue to transact at prices reflecting genuine institutional conviction. If you’re comparing retail to other asset classes on current fundamentals, it continues to screen better than most of the narrative around it. Just be careful about regional mall exposure trying to dress itself up as a redevelopment play; the good ones are being actively repositioned by well-capitalized owners, and the ones that aren’t are a different conversation.
Data Centers and the Power Squeeze
A year ago, the data center demand story in Chicagoland was a macro argument, a directional thesis. It’s no longer a thesis. A data center infrastructure developer recently took a swing at 343 acres in the Chicagoland area. That’s not a speculative conversation; that’s a major transaction at scale with real capital behind it. When a single data center user is evaluating acreage at that level, the ripple effects on surrounding site values, on utility infrastructure investment, and on the competitive landscape for industrial and manufacturing users in the same corridors are real. For most investors, it’s less about the data center itself and more about how it plays into the surrounding industrial ecosystem.
Here’s something showing up in construction conversations but not yet in most market analysis. Electrical trades in Chicago are under meaningful strain. Data center construction is extraordinarily intensive on mechanical and electrical work, and the labor pool for those specific trades, the HVAC specialists, the low-voltage and high-voltage crews, is being pulled toward data center projects at a pace that’s affecting labor availability and pricing for every other construction project in the market. What that means practically: if you’re planning a multifamily development, an office renovation, an industrial build-to-suit, or a retail project with significant mechanical and electrical scope, your timeline and budget need to account for a mechanical and electrical labor market that is tighter than the general construction market. This is not a theoretical future constraint; it’s showing up in bids and schedules right now.
The valuation consequences of that data-center gravity, for the centers themselves and the ordinary buildings around them, are what we worked through in Valuing Chicago Data Centers and Adjacent Properties.
If you own industrial, land, or large-format sites in corridors with credible potential for significant utility access, the value of that land has increased dramatically, even if you never pursue a data center use directly. Understanding how data center demand is affecting the competitive landscape for your site is now part of basic market intelligence, and for any industrial or land investor evaluating new acquisitions, the utility access question should be one of the first in your due diligence.
Redevelopment: Calibration Beats Ambition
I want to start with something that happened in our market over the last couple of years, because it’s instructive in a way most market commentary hasn’t fully processed. Lincoln Yards, the six-billion-dollar mega project that was going to transform a former industrial site on the North Side into 14.5 million square feet of mixed use, did not happen, at least not in the form proposed. On paper it was one of the largest and most ambitious urban redevelopments in Chicago’s modern history, but it ran into a combination of market, political, and financing conditions it could not overcome. I’m not saying the project was conceived wrong. I’m saying the capital market environment, the velocity of the office and residential markets, and the political alignment didn’t come together at the scale and speed the project required. What that teaches us is critical: the constraint is not imagination, it’s calibration, matching the scale and pace of a redevelopment thesis to what the market and capital structure can actually absorb.
Projects that are actually moving in 2026 share a common profile. They’re smaller. They’re in locations with demonstrable near-term demand rather than aspirational future demand. They’re structured around existing community relationships, and they have capital behind them that can absorb some of the unpredictability of the entitlement and construction environment. Where are we seeing this growth? In dense areas on the North Lakefront, the O’Hare corridor, and Lake County locations with life sciences and advanced manufacturing anchors. We’re seeing it in infill redevelopment where the land is expensive and the entitlement is complex, but the demand is there, the capital is there, and the assets that come out command premiums that justify the difficulty. In areas without those growth vectors, communities losing population, losing employment anchors, and dealing with structural fiscal stress, the redevelopment story is fundamentally different, with a fundamentally different risk profile. It’s not necessarily uninvestable, but the underwriting discipline required is significantly higher, the timeline is longer, and the sensitivity analysis has to stress-test scenarios where the recovery thesis doesn’t materialize.
The risk tolerance has changed. Much less risk is tolerated generally in Chicagoland, and investors are looking to deploy capital in dense, growing areas. If you’re willing to look at a zip-code or even block-by-block level, some of the construction cost and variability math may have changed. But the biggest change over the last year is that redevelopments have gotten harder in very specific ways, and they’re still happening. When steel, copper, aluminum, and labor are all running above trend, the gap between the cost of creating new space and the value that space commands narrows, and in some submarkets for some product types that gap is now thin enough that development economics generally don’t work, especially without subsidy. But we are still seeing a premium paid for the densest, hottest-growth areas in Chicago.
What all this means in practice: how you evaluate a redevelopment opportunity, and the basis you pay for land or an asset, matters more than it did two years ago. The construction budget contingency you carry matters more. The entitlement timelines matter more, because every month in entitlement is a month exposed to further cost escalation before you break ground. The developers winning in this environment are the ones who bought land at basis levels that give them room to absorb the current cost structure and still deliver projects that pencil. The ones who are stuck are the ones who underwrote on 2022 construction costs and are now sitting on entitled sites with development budgets that no longer work.
Let me be specific about where we’re watching. Infill industrial redevelopment and the conversion of obsolete retail anchors and underutilized commercial parcels to industrial or multifamily use in the primary Chicago corridors is generating real transaction conversations; the Ford City proposal is the most visible example, but not the only one, and we’re currently working on several in Lake County alone. Office-to-multifamily and mixed-use conversion in select submarkets is moving from concept to transaction; projects that have cleared entitlement are starting to show a deal-flow pattern, and the ones still in the entitlement process are where the next wave of opportunity exists. Land assemblage in corridors adjacent to data center and advanced manufacturing activity, where utility infrastructure is being upgraded and the demand basis is being established by institutional capital, represents arguably one of the most asymmetric land opportunities we’ve seen in years. The redevelopment plays that fit the capital profile of most private investors are not the mega projects; they’re the one-off conversions, the suburban infill assemblages, the value-add industrial positions in corridors with genuine demand. The complexity of these deals keeps a lot of competition out, which leads to above-market returns.
For developers, the construction cost environment is not going away, so build it into your business plan rather than hoping it moderates. The developers pricing for today’s cost structure are the ones getting projects financed and finished; the ones waiting for cost relief are going to wait a while. That restraint, while frustrating, is actually supporting the fundamentals of many assets that are already built.
What Comes Next: Five Things That Matter Most
Let me close with five things I think matter most for anyone navigating this market over the next twelve to eighteen months.
- The cost to build is not coming down. Higher-than-average costs on steel, aluminum, and skilled-trade labor, plus a construction market now competing with data center build-outs for mechanical and electrical resources, mean this pressure is structural, not cyclical. Underwriting for today’s construction costs, not what they were two years ago, is absolutely critical.
- The office market has a supply story, not just a demand story. Prime CBD space is genuinely running out, with no new supply coming until at least 2029. If you’re a tenant expiring now and looking for top-of-market space, start your search early and act decisively. If you’re an investor looking only at vacancy rates, you’re missing the most important variable.
- Chicago multifamily is in the tightest supply environment it’s been since 2012, and institutional capital is starting to recognize it. The window to get ahead of that repricing is open today, and it might not be open for long.
- Power access is the new location. This is true across industrial, data centers, and even some segments of the broader market. The assets with credible power infrastructure are getting absorbed first, priced first, and financed first. It’s now a first-round consideration, not a secondary one.
- Calibration beats ambition in the current development market. The projects getting done are not the biggest or the most ambitious redevelopment visions; they’re the ones where scale, capital structure, community relationships, and the market are in alignment. That calibration is a skill, and the developers who have it are going to do more deals than the ones who don’t.
We love putting out our quarterly analysis because we love providing value. Our RFP index at rfp.vvco.com is updated quarterly and pulls from all of Chicagoland’s major commercial real estate reports, so you can see the market in aggregate in real time rather than through one firm’s lens. If something we talked about today is directly relevant to a deal or a decision you’re working through, please call, email, or text us. We’re happy to help any way we can.
Van Vlissingen and Co. has been the Midwest’s oldest commercial real estate brokerage, development, and management firm since 1879, and today is independently ranked the #1 commercial real estate agency in Chicagoland, home to the #1 independently ranked agent, Gordon Lamphere, and the region’s #1 ranked commercial property management team. If you own, manage, or invest in office, industrial, multifamily, retail, or development-stage property across Lake County, the North Shore, the Northwest and O’Hare corridors, DuPage and the I-88 corridor, Will County, or southern Wisconsin’s Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha, and Racine markets, contact Van Vlissingen and Co. at 📞 847-634-2300 or 🌐 vvco.com, and explore the live RFP index at rfp.vvco.com.