Why is Chicago losing population? (Rockford, DeKalb: condos, credit, how much)

[Drover]

And that still doesn't change anything I said.

[dmann304]

No one knows for sure how many people Chicago has now. Im guess in the area of 5 million and yes by a study the metroy area is around 10 million now.

Mexicans make up a fourth of the population now unlike 50 years ago.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by Drover

All of the above might make sense if the metro area were losing population. But it's not. It's still growing, and I don't think it's because of high birth rates. For all the people who leave, just as many and more are coming.

Newer (2000-2005) figures here:

Chicago, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. (incl. Gary and Kenosha)
-342,664 domestic migration
+306,954 international migration
= net migration loss of 35,710
Not huge in the grand scheme of a metro population of 9,505,748 (2005 est.), just 0.38%, but still net negative.

Of course, these are Census dept. estimates, so take with a grain of salt.

[CarolinaBredChicagoan]

Just a note on that sales tax thing: I don't know about the rest of the cities out there, but in Chicago the sales tax on the thing I buy most often and am least prone to buy out of town (groceries) is around 2%.

That helps.

As for population, it's a pendulum. We've had increases and decreases over the years, but, as previously indicated, the real population losses in the Midwest can be found in places like Detroit where industrial jobs are drying up. Chicago has a pretty diverse economy, so we're doing fine.

[Chinolala]

Originally Posted by pandabear

Okay gentrification is definatly a reason. Chicago like LA and New York, has suburbs that are more affordable than the city. But mexicans having LESS babies and affording their own places? I don't think so. Ask someone who is white and living in Dallas or San Diego if it seems to him mexicans are having LESS babies. Your gonna get laughed out of existance talking that nonsense.

It's not nonsense. Many Mexicans in the Chicago "area" live in the suburbs now. For the same reason non-Mexicans do. Cheaper.

[oakparkdude]

So I stumble into work today for an early morning meeting, which I then find out is cancelled. This gives me plenty of time to waste on the internet (even more than usual) and allows me to pull up this interesting bit of data.

US Census Press Releases



The usualy Sunbelt suspects totally dominate the top ten population gainers, with the sole exception of Chicago, at number 7. (And yes, I know this refers to the metro area, not the city proper. I just didn't feel like starting up a new thread.)

[Lookout Kid]

Wow, we're the ONLY non Sun-Belt metro area on that chart!

Of course, we won't know what happened for sure until the 2010 Census Data is released. And even that doesn't manage to count many of the immigrants and homeless people. The 2000 Census showed a gain in the city by almost 100,000 residents, and their lousy "estimates" were predicting a loss. So you really have to take those estimates with a grain of salt.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

The 2000 Census showed a gain in the city by almost 100,000 residents, and their lousy "estimates" were predicting a loss.

Weren't their estimates shortchanging us by like 250,000 before they actually counted heads? Those estimates are worthless.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by paytonc

Newer (2000-2005) figures here:

Chicago, Ill.-Ind.-Wis. (incl. Gary and Kenosha)
-342,664 domestic migration
+306,954 international migration
= net migration loss of 35,710
Not huge in the grand scheme of a metro population of 9,505,748 (2005 est.), just 0.38%, but still net negative.

Of course, these are Census dept. estimates, so take with a grain of salt.

Well that's not taking into account births over deaths. That's why the net migration has a loss of 35,710, but the actual Metro area still grew by 450,000 during that period.



I think it's kinda natural and healthy for Chicago to shed off a few people. Up until the 1950's, houses were chopped up and divided into apartments where families lived. The families fled the city from the 60's through early 90's, and now that's pretty much stopped for the most part. Those divided up houses are now being converted into normal houses again, and even if they aren't, the makeup of our housing sizes is much different. You have a lot of single people living in these new gentrified places. Where you might have had a cramped house divided into 8 apartments full of famlies, you now have a 4 flat with maybe 6-8 people.

Clearly smaller housing sizes are going to lead to smaller populations. That isn't really UNHEALTHY. Places like Phoenix, Dallas and Houston are growing so fast in part because they're swallowing up massive tracts of land and building huge subdivisions.

Chicago is also doing this, but it's in the suburbs, not the city proper. The city hasn't grown in size for 60 years. Houston is building sprawling houses by the thousands every year on new land. So Chicago is sick and dying and Houston is growing and super healthy? It's all apples and oranges.

Even if Chicago ends up losing 1-2% of it's population like the census says, I don't think this means the city is less healthy than it was 10 years ago. On the other hand you have places like Detroit that are still losing upwards of 10% of their population in the past 10 years. This is clearly a different scenario.....

[Humboldt1]

Mexicans account for roughly 1/3 of Chicago's population, which may be low as many are not counted.

Mexicans tend to have fewer and fewer babies the more educated and affluent they become. This is true for other races too.

Most of my Mexican neighbors in Humboldt Park have 3 to 5 kids, and start early. When these same Mexicans become more affluent, they may move to the suburbs in search of better opportunities. The 2nd generation tends to have fewer kids and starts later in life. I see this strictly as a function of affluence and education, not race or culture.

I saw a study for US population, perhaps someone can site the source:

Whites 1.9 kids average
Blacks 3.1 kids average
Hispanics 2.4 kids average (drops to 2.1 for those with high school)
Asians (I don't recall the numbers)

PLEASE NOTE: These numbers may be slightly off as I am quoting from memory.

Basically, the study showed that in the US white population had gone down as a percentage of overall while hispanic population had gone up. Black population has remained steady since 1950. Immigration is not significant for blacks as source of population growth but higher birth rates among the existing population. White population growth was mostly due to immigration from Europe. Hispanic growth was dramatic with combo of immigration and higher birth rates.

I don't know what the real population is in Chicago. Many renters in Chicago claim residence in other states or outlying suburbs in order to get cheaper insurance on their cars. Whatever the number is, I am sure it is between 2.8 and 3.2MM. I guess with some many undocumented people we will never know, but I am guessing 3.0MM is a close guess. If we have much more gentrification, perhaps the DINKs will draw this number down overall, as they have in specific neighborhoods such as WestTown.