Chicago shrinks by over 200,000 in the 2000's Part 1 (Forest Park, Phoenix: cost of living, food)

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by aragx6

I'd be curious to know if any major city beat its 2009 estimate.

El Paso is the only major city of a large population that beat its 2009 estimates & 2010 projections from November on both City & MSA level.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

And another thing: Not that theres anything wrong with strip malls and chains, but it just seems like there are enough strip malls with parking lots in places very close to downtown, such as around North and Clybourn, ALL around Roosevelt and the river, and other areas too, that I guess I'm just missing what makes Chicago in a whole other class compared in urbanity. When I do a google earth search I see more parking lot areas outside downtown Chicago than other cities.

This is because of all of the industry that used to be located right by downtown. There is a lot of land left open due to the stockyards, rail yards, grain elevators, and warehouses that used to be located downtown for rail and canal access. In the areas of Chicago that are growing the old brownfields are being re-purposed for modern retail uses (or residential in the case of the South and West Loop). Residences in Lincoln Park, Roscoe Village, Logan Square and Bucktown basically support the retail corridors on Clybourn and Elston.

I've always seen this as one of Chicago's best attributes, it mixes the old urban benefits (public transit, small local shops, walkability) with the conveniences of newer auto-centric cities. Today at lunch I picked up spices, bread and cheeses at a small Mid-Eastern store, and I'll stop at a specialty butcher on the way home from work (or I may stop at the live poultry place and pick up a duck, I haven't decided yet). I can find LOADS of different, and very specialized, items along my short commute home. I can also drive 5-10 minutes to Costco, Home Depot, Target, Binny's etc. on the weekends and do my bulk discount shopping. The daily shopping that I do is something that can generally only be done in traditional, dense, urban areas*. The type of shopping I do on the weekends can generally only be done in newer cities that are auto-centric and don't have public transit. It also goes far beyond normal day to day purchases, I just bought some industrial welding supplies for a friend on my way home last Friday - the place was right where I get on the bus. I think Chicago is very unique in that way.

*I realize that many suburban areas have a lot of ethnic/specialty stores, but you need to drive quite awhile to find the same variety I go by just in the course of a normal day in the city.

[edsg25]

Pardon me. Am I the only person who considers metropolitan population far more important than city population?

What on earth does comparing the size of one central city to another tell you?

For all the talk about Houston, it seems to me that if one goes to Texas, one would see that one city is far larger than the rest: Houston. But if one looks at metro areas, D/FW's Metroplex and Metro Houston are about the same. In essence, the power of Dallas matches the power of Houston; where city limits lie doesn't fit into the equation.

Two of America's greatest cities, San Francisco and Boston, are small places. But along with a number of other advantages, they are the heart of large metro areas. San Francisco comes in 4th in California population, behind LA, SD, and SJ. Nobody in the City by the Bay seems to care. Indeed, SF is the 2nd biggest city in its own Bay Area, with San Jose now bigger. So what?

Chicago is at a low point in its population vis a vis Chicagoland. My guess for the 2020 census:

that's going to change.

Reality states that we are living in a different era today. The recession (if that's what you want to call it) grinds on. The nation, certainly DC, isn't doing much to change our fortunes.

Resources are tighter today. We are either at peak oil. Or we're close.

What does that mean for Chicago and Chicagoland?

Well, first: it means don't look out there today at stretches of the South and West sides that have the life sucked out of them. You can't use that as a predictor of tomorrow. Indeed, many Chicagoans a half century and less back thought that areas that went through racial change were going to keep those demographics forever. Of course, they were wrong.

So keep in mind that reality dictates that we become more centralized, more dependent on public transportation, builder denser and often smaller units as our homes and apartments. Run down areas within Chicago, close to el and other public transportation, will see their value rise. Population loss and sparse neighborhoods will be more easily subject to wide scale development.

And while this happens, some of the most far flung portions of Chicagoland as it bleeds across the Wisconsin state line, further into Indiana, into the outer parts of Will County, and across the Fox heading toward DeKalb will become less and less economically viable.

As for Houston, climate change is real. Houston is hell-on-fire with endless heat and humidity. My sense is the next ten years are not going to be very kind to it.

And ultimately when it comes to this battle over population, at some point don't we have to change our pardigms?

Along with everything else in our culture, can TOO BIG be a problem for population, as well? I think both New York and LA, both great cities in great metro areas, suffer from becoming so big that their central cities aren't even cities any more, but urban regions unto their own. Sustainability suggests there are limits of how many people a metro area can have and still be functional, still sustain.

So pardon me if I don't think that Chicago's greatness has been threatened by the reality of a population drop. Chicago will always be a greater city than Houston (a typical southwestern city where city limits are so far out that city and metro area are almost the same) even if Houston passes us up in population.

And I've got a pretty good track record to prove it:

Far smaller San Francisco and Boston can run rings around Houston in the greatness quality. And within the Bay Area, San Francisco can do the same to San Jose.

Unless someone out there would like to suggest that San Jose is greater than San Francisco...

[grapico]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

It depends on how you cut it. If you are talking about meto regions, explore the area (not even counting natural areas), than Chicago doesn't come out on top as much, if you are a downtown/city core, don't like making trips, then Chicago comes out more on top.

I like making trips, but I can just fly out to different places. Therefore I like the most bang for the buck on a daily basis, then go elsewhere for other stuff. I would get bored with the metro options eventually as well, and have.

I think if you were confined "only" to say the Bay Area or DMV then, I would probably pick either over Chicago metro, they simply have more variety. And for many, I think the price points might not let them leave as frequently and are by that nature confined more to those metros. I've also found for the COL in Chicago, you can actually enjoy those said amenities more often.

That isn't the case for me though, and I travel widely anyhow, nationally and international. Chicago is a pretty good bang for the buck base at this point in my life. Though I'm not sure if I see myself here long long term due to the 2 body problem, family obligations, etc.

Even in NYC, I am sure I would be bored if I felt "stuck" there and didn't get out of there often enough, but the price of NYC at this point, wouldn't allow that option for me.

Chicago itself is the biggest draw for Chicago for me, including COL, amenities, QOL. The biggest downsides compared to other major metros are, natural surroundings, weather, location in relation to other cities I'm interested in.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by edsg25

As for Houston, climate change is real. Houston is hell-on-fire with endless heat and humidity. My sense is the next ten years are not going to be very kind to it.

As much as climate change is real, is grossly misunderstood.

Its really the rapid, yet very small change that is really what triggers more extreme weather, even though the actual increase is small. Hurricanes can become more intense, but little evidence is there in terms of frequency. Year to year variability is dependent on things like wind shear while greater intensity is due to sea surface temps.

Plus the tropical and subtropical areas are going to see the least warming. It is the cold areas covered in snow and ice for most or all of the year that are experience the most actual warming due to the differences in reflection of solar energy off snow and ice.

[stephei2000]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Not true, the boulevards and parks and Cook Co. forest preserves are not often replicated in other large cities. The abundance of tree-lined streets with large, mature trees is not replicated in the desert cities like Phoenix. The tree-lined streets and forest preserves you find in the collar counties is also not always found in other areas. Yes, there are areas with more, but Dallas and other areas in the plains and desert SW are not.


Interviewed for job there in '08. Better area than often given credit for. Did not like the lack of city zoning, the unmitigated sprawl, the humidity and lack of close in infrastucture for cycling that I have here. Would have liked warmer winters, being able to explore TX, go to the gulf & more. Actually Austin appealed a bit more, but it seems to be losing its charm because of its sprawl. If I could take Dallas areas zoning, focus on transit with Houstons lushness and add Austins focus on outdoor recreation,cycling friendliness & hill country, it would be a compelling city. At the end of the day each city/region has +'s & -'s. Can you live with your areas list of both and be relatively happy?

Yeah, maybe that is true I have not been to Texas yet so it is just a thought. Also, I comparing Chicago to my hometown Detroit. The Detroit areas has much more greenery and trees. This is the first shocking thing when I moved to Chicago the lack of trees and bushes. I guess I am comparing mostly the northside which I told was the place to move. The southside is a little more green and normal looking. Lastly, I have not been to Phoenix but I would never live in the desert.

[Alacran]

Originally Posted by stephei2000

Yeah, maybe that is true I have not been to Texas yet so it is just a thought. Also, I comparing Chicago to my hometown Detroit. The Detroit areas has much more greenery and trees. This is the first shocking thing when I moved to Chicago the lack of trees and bushes. I guess I am comparing mostly the northside which I told was the place to move. The southside is a little more green and normal looking. Lastly, I have not been to Phoenix but I would never live in the desert.

It's greener cus Detroit's buildings where destroyed

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

And I think I just plain disagree, that "Chicago is your best bet for your money.".

No, that's Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Unless one simply has to have a first-tier city... and not everyone does.

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

In fact, Drover, I do recall a post of yours long ago where you said that "Chicago has 2/3 to 3/4 of what New York has for 1/2 the price.

One could also say that "Cleveland has 2/3 to 3/4 of what Chicago has for 1/2 the price" and it would be just as true.

Excellent, very thoughtful post overall, Tex. Tried to give you a rec but was told I must "spread some around" first.

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by andrew61

One could also say that "Cleveland has 2/3 to 3/4 of what Chicago has for 1/2 the price" and it would be just as true.

I can't agree with that statement. If Cleveland offered anywhere near 3/4 of what Chicago does I would probably live there.

[ajolotl]

"One could also say that ""Cleveland has 2/3 to 3/4 of what Chicago has for 1/2 the price"" and it would be just as true."

It is a far bigger exaggeration than the New York analogy, which at least is within reason.