Chicago shrinks by over 200,000 in the 2000's Part 1 (Arlington Heights, Oak Park: employment, transferring to)

[Failte]

Since Chicago's population has declined by almost 1 million people since 1950, with a growth spurt in the mid-to-late 1990s, it's real hard to stop the decline that has commenced again. I was really only wondering how much of that 1990s growth might have been lost, maybe half, but 200k plus is shocking...instead of rolling back to 1990, Chicago has gone back to its 1920 level!! The metro area growth has also slowed considerably...this has to be addressed as well as we do not want to see the region in decline.

[Failte]

I wonder the actual numbers in these gentrified are...I mean if 1,000 people lived in an area in 2000 and now 2,000 people are there, it's a 100% growth rate...the tax burden, including the onerous $42,000/household just for the city's unfunded pensions, will be placed on all of these gentrified areas. We need middle class families to stay in the city!!

[Humboldt1]

I personally know for a fact that my area of Humboldt Park was undercounted by at least 1300 households as I was informed that the original census worker has found guilty of fraud for incorrectly reporting information.

How many people such as myself responded to the 2nd caller after they already talked to the first census worker? I did, but I would assume many did not.

On my block in Humboldt Park in the past 5 years there has been a loss of 6 families due to 2 foreclosures. Other than that, the block has remained fairly static with regards to population. Most of my neighbors have not changed over the past 5 years.

Savoir and Allen,

I do think those with mobility such as black middle class have more freedom to migrate. However, Savoir brings up a good point about 24k people leaving Austin, which is mostly poor blacks.

Hopefully, we can get rid of some of the green line stops as there are fewer riders at these stops than in the past. This would make for a quicker and more pleasant commute for me and I wouldn't always have to wait for the next metra train.

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by coldwine

To be honest, it's more or less a good thing.

The people Chicago lost were not, by and large, the valuable citizens who pay taxes and have jobs.

In other news, welfare claims and crime should be seeing great drops

Exactly. It'd be helpful to get a socioeconomic perspective of the people who left. If the people who left were not contributing to the economy anyway, then I don't see it as much of a problem.

And other cities have experienced declines in numbers only to rebound later (like San Francisco from the 70s and 80s through now), so while noting obvious differences between SF and Chicago, I still think it's a little too soon to make any major presumptions. File:SFPopulation.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone have info on the overall metro area growth?

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Hopefully, we can get rid of some of the green line stops as there are fewer riders at these stops than in the past. This would make for a quicker and more pleasant commute for me and I wouldn't always have to wait for the next metra train.

Man I agree with you on a bunch of things, but this is just ludicrous.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by Bluefoxwarrior

Anyone have info on the overall metro area growth?

Look at this:

MAP: Population change in the Chicago region from 2000-2010 - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0216-census-gfx.eps-20110215,0,7750399.graphic - broken link)

[meatpuff]

Comparisons to Detroit are way off base. There you have an entire metro (indeed, state) slammed in the one industry that mattered most. And really it has been going on for decades. Illinois employment is relatively healthy and stable, here you just have people shifting around the metro area. The Sun Times is reporting the metro area grew by 280,000 people. Will County added 175,000 folks, almost enough to offset Cook's loss by itself.

Before this Census, I had thought of Chicago as having an increasingly absent middle class (except for city workers, but they are knocking on the door of upper middle class these days, financially if not culturally) with many of the richest and the poorest residents of Chicagoland residing inside the city, plus the young and fabulous. Now we see that many of the poor who *can* manage to get out, are. If the middle class AND poor are leaving, what is left? We will have a better picture when the breakdowns by income come out.


Here are my two burning questions for the next 20 years:

1. Over the last 50 years, we have seen many of yesterday's poorest and most violent neighborhoods in 20 years' time just empty out as anyone who can leave, does. Will society ever find a way to "reclaim" these areas for the middle/upper class? This has happened in the South Loop and West Loop with impressive results. Will this ever happen anywhere in the city that does not have such a golden location, and in particular will it happen in heavily black neighborhoods? Except for South and West Loop, I can't think of any yuppie neighborhoods that were formerly teeming black ghettoes. Others have mentioned how Englewood and Woodlawn and Washington Park have become ghost towns, mostly wasted space where no one will live. These are the type of areas I'm wondering about. These areas of wasted space will only become more numerous since we see blacks are not just leaving the worst black neighborhoods, but the city entirely.

2. Will the yuppies and middle class 20-somethings find a way to raise their kids in the city, in their gentrified neighborhoods? Historically young parents have bolted for the suburbs, but these current residents seem to want very badly to make it work in the city. The problem is schools, but if enough of them send their kids to the neighborhood schools, those test scores WILL go up. Lincoln Park schools have already become mostly usable. This would "permanently" reclaim those areas for the middle and upper class, and add plenty to the population.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

Weren't some paranoid right wingers telling people not to answer the census.

Maybe there are 200,000+ paranoid right-wingers in Chicago.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by meatpuff

2. Will the yuppies and middle class 20-somethings find a way to raise their kids in the city, in their gentrified neighborhoods? Historically young parents have bolted for the suburbs, but these current residents seem to want very badly to make it work in the city. The problem is schools, but if enough of them send their kids to the neighborhood schools, those test scores WILL go up. Lincoln Park schools have already become mostly usable. This would "permanently" reclaim those areas for the middle and upper class, and add plenty to the population.

Historically middle class people HAVE raised kids in the city; it's only recently (since the late 1960s, recent in historical terms) that the public schools went to Hell. If the schools get fixed (which is IMO a political problem easily solved once the political will is in place) the middle class will stay. If they have jobs.

[Chi-Guy]

First off, anyone who believes the census numbers in Chicago are even remotely accurate needs to understand that there were hundreds of thousands that didn't respond. HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS. In all actuality, Chicago is closer to 3 million than the Census states.

Secondly, Chicago has seen a big increase in upper middle, and upper class residents. We have - like the rest of the United States - seen a shrinking middle or lower middle class. This is cause for concern. As Chicago's neighborhoods change, the middle class usually have 2 choices: live amongst poor, or barely get by living with the upper middle, and upper. The taxes force them out of their homes, or crime does. So we have such a gap in Chicago. One that wasn't as noticeable. Now, the middle class moves out to places like Orland Park, Bollingbrook, Hanover Park, Vernon Hills, etc.