Is Chicago Underpopulated? (Naperville, Oak Park, Lincoln: big house, best schools, high income)

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

I ride my bike down through there often (I live at 14th and Michigan). Today I rode State down to 33rd and then west to Bridgeport and bought a couple of Italian subs at Uncle Johnny's deli at 32nd and Normal. Then cycled home and my wife and I had a nice lunch out on the balcony looking at the Lake. Then I smoked a cigar and had a cup of coffee. Nice day so far.

Great day for it! When IIT was first built, wasn't the near south side the high- end wealthy part of town- and then it moved north to the Gold coast? That would explain IIT's location perhaps.
PS. Did you have a piece of cake with your coffee?

[smith21]

Originally Posted by Gateway Region

I believe the major issue with Chicago losing population was due to the boom of the automobile. This population loss due to the automobile happened in all of the "older" cities, including my home of Philadelphia. The city lost population, but families were moving from the city to the suburbs. Therefore, the city did not feel empty or abandoned at all. Personally, I love extremely dense cities and would love to see Chicago at around 3.5 million. A 3.5 million city population would put Chicago at around 15,000 ppsm.

even at 2.7 million people chicago has a density of around 14,000 people per square mile. thats if you take away the ohare neighborhood that is 95 percent taken up by the airport. take away that neighborhood and chicago is really about 195 square miles.

[Dncr]

Originally Posted by smith21

even at 2.7 million people chicago has a density of around 14,000 people per square mile. thats if you take away the ohare neighborhood that is 95 percent taken up by the airport. take away that neighborhood and chicago is really about 195 square miles.

I thought they didn't actually take into consideration land used by airports

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Dncr

I thought they didn't actually take into consideration land used by airports

I don't know who you mean by "they," but in most density numbers it's simply the population divided by the entire land area within city limits, with no adjustment for anything.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Gateway Region

I believe the major issue with Chicago losing population was due to the boom of the automobile. This population loss due to the automobile happened in all of the "older" cities, including my home of Philadelphia. The city lost population, but families were moving from the city to the suburbs. Therefore, the city did not feel empty or abandoned at all. Personally, I love extremely dense cities and would love to see Chicago at around 3.5 million. A 3.5 million city population would put Chicago at around 15,000 ppsm.

In Chicago's case, most of the population loss, at least up until 2010's census, was due to smaller household sizes.

15,000 ppsm isn't at all "extremely dense," in my opinion. I would call it dense, but not very dense, and definitely not extremely dense.

[Chi-town Native]

Speaking of population numbers:

Showdown brewing as Chicago redistricting nears?

[chicago103]

Originally Posted by Drover

You're right, it does depend on $$$. That's the whole point -- middle-class families don't have enough $$$ to live in the city and assure a quality education for their kids. So pointing to strollers and saying "see, there's young families here!" is a meaningless indicator if those families are simply going to cycle in and out of the city rather than move here and stay.

That is not true, I don't know why people keep perpetuating this myth. There are plenty of middle class neighborhoods in Chicago with lots of kids, it is more commonplace on the far NW and SW sides but if you have a little more money you could do it in the popular north side areas as well. The problem is that way too many middle class people in the city are city workers and multi-generation city dwellers. The yuppies who are ex-suburbanites are actually very ignorant of Chicago neighborhoods outside of the super popular north side areas and that is why so many of them move to the suburbs and what you are saying only fuels that ignorance. I live in a part of the city with mostly middle class families with children so someone can't tell me that.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by chicago103

That is not true, I don't know why people keep perpetuating this myth. There are plenty of middle class neighborhoods in Chicago with lots of kids, it is more commonplace on the far NW and SW sides but if you have a little more money you could do it in the popular north side areas as well. The problem is that way too many middle class people in the city are city workers and multi-generation city dwellers. The yuppies who are ex-suburbanites are actually very ignorant of Chicago neighborhoods outside of the super popular north side areas and that is why so many of them move to the suburbs and what you are saying only fuels that ignorance. I live in a part of the city with mostly middle class families with children so someone can't tell me that.

No, they're familiar with those parts of the city -- and they're also familiar with the quality of the schools and/or the parochial-school alternatives in most of those neighborhoods. And that's why they beat a retreat for those suburbs that have better schools.

[chicago103]

Originally Posted by Drover

No, they're familiar with those parts of the city -- and they're also familiar with the quality of the schools and/or the parochial-school alternatives in most of those neighborhoods. And that's why they beat a retreat for those suburbs that have better schools.

I think it is a bit naive to assume everyone is informed about these matters, many clearly are not, I am sure some are but most just go with the flow and what people like them in their social circles do. If they perceive that they can't live their desired lifestyle in a few choice north lakefront neighborhoods then they just move to the burbs. Also I don't see why it would be such a clear cut choice between outer city neighborhoods and the suburbs if you truly prefer urban living. Also many of these yuppies are actually wealthier than most of the people in those neighborhoods who even send their kids to the parochial schools so it has little to do with the fact they can't afford it. This has been argued many times on here and some people just seemed determined to knit pick the outer neighborhoods to death and idealize the suburbs. Sure there should be MORE good neighborhoods and school to raise kids in but at the same time let's not pretend there are none or even few. The reality is that many people are just basically conditioned into believing they must move to the suburbs. I am also not attacking people's right to choose where they want to live but just because freedom of choice exists doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who choose out of ignorance. Many of these people just have a very shallow attachment to the city because I can't think of a reason in the world these pretty well off people can't live a wonderful lifestyle with kids in my neighborhood.

[Drover]

If the schools in these outer neighborhoods are so great, the city wouldn't have to force its employees to live in them. We know damn well what would happen if the residency requirement were lifted. While quite a few would still send their kids to Catholic schools even if they had the option to live in the suburbs, it stands to reason that many of the rest who live in these outer neighborhoods would jump at the chance to send their kids to suburban schools if they could.