Is Chicago Underpopulated? (Humboldt, Norwood: community college, moving, housing market)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by pvande55

Maybe they ought to rezone some vacant areas for acre lots. Could attract some executives from such horsy areas as Hawthorn Woods and Barrington Hills.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by j_cat

There are so many factors to consider. For one thing, the newer type of "city person" tends to have a much smaller household size than previous types. So that's a loss in population without any loss in occupancy (or wealth). The list goes on and on.

Even before the current wave of gentrification, take a look at the 1930-1990 population change for West Town -- i.e., Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village, Noble Square, and other thriving neighborhoods:
West Town

It is a Good Thing that families of 10 are no longer crowded into two-bedroom apartments. The new, smaller population requires fewer churches, fewer schools, and fewer corner grocery stores, but in other ways today's city people consume more of certain public goods that the previous population needed less off -- parks and bars and shops and restaurants.

Originally Posted by Drover

I don't understand this bizarre fantasy that higher gas prices are going to force a reverse mass exodus from the suburbs back to the city.

1. City people drive less in total. Even if a city dweller drives for every single trip, those trips are shorter and thus fewer miles driven. Furthermore, work trips are less than 1/4 of trips, and if someone can walk to the grocery/library/cleaners that's a substantial number of trips saved.

2. The center of all job locations in the region is probably somewhere around O'Hare. For dual income couples trying to find a location convenient (or equally inconvenient) for both commutes, central locations beat out peripheral locations.

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe we ought to find out what nationality has the highest birth rates and go place Chicago advertising there ... lol

Interestingly, that won't be Mexico -- soon, its fertility rate will be lower than the USA's.

[UKUKUK]

Originally Posted by paytonc

Even before the current wave of gentrification, take a look at the 1930-1990 population change for West Town -- i.e., Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village, Noble Square, and other thriving neighborhoods:
West Town

It is a Good Thing that families of 10 are no longer crowded into two-bedroom apartments. The new, smaller population requires fewer churches, fewer schools, and fewer corner grocery stores, but in other ways today's city people consume more of certain public goods that the previous population needed less off -- parks and bars and shops and restaurants.



1. City people drive less in total. Even if a city dweller drives for every single trip, those trips are shorter and thus fewer miles driven. Furthermore, work trips are less than 1/4 of trips, and if someone can walk to the grocery/library/cleaners that's a substantial number of trips saved.

2. The center of all job locations in the region is probably somewhere around O'Hare. For dual income couples trying to find a location convenient (or equally inconvenient) for both commutes, central locations beat out peripheral locations.



Interestingly, that won't be Mexico -- soon, its fertility rate will be lower than the USA's.

You're a planner/planning student, aren't you?

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Then let me copy-and-paste my very easy-to-read and easy-to-understand summary:

"There was no mass exodus to the suburbs or anywhere else."

My claim was that the result of north side gentrification is that it gained population. You disagreed. The census data, for what it's worth, supports my position.

That is all.

I didn't say the north side didn't gain population, I said that many people leave the north side for the burbs, but few move to the south & west side.

The census data describing the total population of the north side (especially lumping in downtown) in aggregate is 100% irrelevant to my point & the topic here, which was what will it take to re-populate the south & west sides.

Now, whether the amount of folks who left the north side over the past 10 or 20 years qualifies as a "mass exodus" is certainly a fair question for debate - I would absolutely say massive numbers of people left the north side for the burbs, the census data simply shows what we all anecdotally know, which is that huge numbers of people continue to move to the north side on an annual basis.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I didn't say the north side didn't gain population, I said that many people leave the north side for the burbs, but few move to the south & west side.

The census data describing the total population of the north side (especially lumping in downtown) in aggregate is 100% irrelevant to my point & the topic here, which was what will it take to re-populate the south & west sides.

Now, whether the amount of folks who left the north side over the past 10 or 20 years qualifies as a "mass exodus" is certainly a fair question for debate - I would absolutely say massive numbers of people left the north side for the burbs, the census data simply shows what we all anecdotally know, which is that huge numbers of people continue to move to the north side on an annual basis.

Maybe, but than a more massive group moved into the north side because it gained population.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Now, whether the amount of folks who left the north side over the past 10 or 20 years qualifies as a "mass exodus" is certainly a fair question for debate - I would absolutely say massive numbers of people left the north side for the burbs, the census data simply shows what we all anecdotally know, which is that huge numbers of people continue to move to the north side on an annual basis.

As an outsider, it seems that many of the North Side neighborhoods (mainly along the Lake), are a place where fresh out of college to early 30's crowd moves, then heads back to where they came from. It is nothing more than a cycle, and in some years, more will move in than move out and in others the opposite happens. Much of the North Side seems to have a fairly stable population, with no big spikes either way. I would relate it to many neighborhoods in Manhattan where people with families start heading to Jersey, Long Island or Westchester and they are replaced with the new breed of people coming in thinking they will "make it". I truly believe rent control keeps the population in New York a bit more steady (along with immigration), as people tend not to move as much as I have seen in Chicago.

[Vlajos]

I think we have seen a trend in recent years for more families with kids staying in the City. Look at Northside CPS school enrollment. It has been increasing at a decent clip, while schools on the southside have had losses. Hispanic neighborhoods have seen huge increases in students as well.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I didn't say the north side didn't gain population

You said exactly that.

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Those populations didn't climb as far as I remember seeing - most studies I've seen suggest larger families with kids were replaced by single folks and DINKs in many cases.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

You said exactly that.

A 25,000 increase for the entire north side is negligible in a conversation that began with someone hypothesizing what it would take to get over 2 MILLION people into Chicago.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Maybe, but than a more massive group moved into the north side because it gained population.

Sure, that's exactly what I said. But the point that is relevant to the OP is that no matter how populated the north side gets, it doesn't seem to be spilling over to the west and south sides.