Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. One consequence of Chicago’s absolute population decline that is not currently being fully felt (thank President Obama for that) , but which one day will be, is its population decline relative to the nation as a whole. In 1950, 2.3% of the nation lived in Chicago. Today it is about 0.87%. Obviously much of that change is due simply to the doubling of the national population, but not all of it. Chicago does not have the voice in Congress that it once had.
2. Young people like living in big cities like Chicago. But when they start having kids, they tend to place the quality of the local public school system ahead of the availability of other urban amenities on their “must have” list. This has cost Chicago in the past, hurts it in the present and likely will for the foreseeable future.
3. The notion that high fuel prices will drive people back to the city may indeed have some merit, but only if you mean “drive them back to nice affordable neighborhoods served by good quality schools (if they’ve kids), not much crime and nearby employment” I can’t see West Englewood or similar areas resume growing any time soon, as there is just too little social capital to build on in such places.
4. Chicago might have a D. C. scenario in its future. D.C. used to be about 70% black, but now is about 55% black and on track to soon be mostly white, asian, and hispanic. The Wall Street Journal article I linked to at the start of the thread reports that the out-migration of people from Chicago is now disproportionately black, which is a reversal of trends going back fifty - sixty years when it was mostly whites leaving and blacks arriving.. Will Chicago one day again be a mostly white city? That’s a hard question of population dynamics, and I cannot even venture a guess.
4. Chicago might have a D. C. scenario in its future. D.C. used to be about 70% black, but now is about 55% black and on track to soon be mostly white, asian, and hispanic. The Wall Street Journal article I linked to at the start of the thread reports that the out-migration of people from Chicago is now disproportionately black, which is a reversal of trends going back fifty - sixty years when it was mostly whites leaving and blacks arriving.. Will Chicago one day again be a mostly white city? That’s a hard question of population dynamics, and I cannot even venture a guess.
Something tells me you're under the impression that Chicago is majority black? Not even close.
Since the city continues to become more Asian and Hispanic, I'm not sure any one group will ever be in the majority here.
I don't think you understand what I'm proposing. What I'm proposing is not at all like the Dan Ryan or the Ike, which each tore out a long path a couple blocks wide and sunk it with nothing above except for bridges at major streets. That was a gash that separated the two sides because it severed so many cross-streets.
What I'm proposing is different. Have you been to Shanghai? Have you seen their elevated highways like the Yan'an Elevated Road (Yan'an Zhong Lu - 延安中路)? Put something like that over the existing rail, and you'd maintain the rail and add expressway capacity and not add any additional barriers to the neighborhoods. That would make it faster and easier for residents of those central neighborhoods to get around the region. It would make those neighborhoods more desirable from a transportation (if not transit) standpoint.
I agree that nothing like the Ike or Dan Ryan should ever be built again. But an elevated expressway over existing rails, or even over an existing major high-capacity street, would not have anywhere near the negative impact that those old below-grade ones have. Ask people who live in Shanghai if they think the elevated expressways detroy their neighborhoods, and while a few won't like them, the vast majority think they're a great addition. But, honestly, the only real objection to what I'm suggestion would be made on terms of cost. But even there, elevating it is unlikely to cost more than buying out a bunch of landowners, losing tax revenues, digging a gash, and building dozens of cross-bridges. In actuality, an elevated one like that probably ends up costing the city less overall than something like the Ike or Dan Ryan would. Done right, it's win-win. And I wouldn't rule out adding BRT-only lanes or even elevated rail (thought I still think rail in those areas would be too underutilized).
I understand what you're saying, BUT I do think you're underestimating the impact an elevated expressway has. Internationally, they're often referred to as flyovers. I've never seen the one in Shanghai, but I have seen them in the Pearl River District of China, Mumbai, and Cairo, and people do have strong objections to them in those areas. There is still a psychological, if not street level, barrier to flyovers that breaks up neighborhoods, increases pollution, congestion, etc.
There is a documentary related to the construction of a flyover in Mumbai and the negative community reaction, and currently, Mumbai is even removing several of theirs.
Flyovers are a necessary dance with the devil in those areas, because:
-you're talking about metros that are rapidly expanding that are 2x the size of Chicago.
-you're dealing with exponential car ownership growth, so future traffic will be far beyond its current level
-most importantly, these metros are 10 times as dense as Chicago...all around 100,000/square mile. Those developing world expressways are also going through neighborhoods that are as a dense as 200K to 250K per square mile. For reference, the average density of these entire metros in many cases is more dense than the densest census tract in Chicago (90K/sq mi), which is only a 2.5 block stretch of high rises around Edgewater.
-these metros are noisy wherever you are, so any incremental noise associated with them feels a little more like a drop in a bucket already full of water. As a result, they don't change the character of neighborhoods the way it would in that corridor of 15K per square mile.
-the need in those cities is much more dire in terms of congestion relief. A Chicagoan complaining to somone in Mumbai or Shanghai about traffic is like someone from Ames, Iowa doing the same to a Chicagoan. It's just a whole different level of bad.
In the context of a flyover in Chicago along that corridor:
-the character of the area would change no matter how high/graceful/Shanghai-like you make it, because it is jarring when you compare it to its surroundings. Much more so than those being built in ultra dense parts of the developing world today.
-It would need to be 4 lanes each way (min 3 each way with a 4th lane each way for exits in parts). The right of way along the corridor is not wide enought to accomodate a freeway (elevated or not), so many of the warehouses, scrapyards, light manufacturing already on that narrow band of track would need to be removed. It may not seem like a lot, but in an area with crummy employment, that is a huge loss.
-You would have limited access points to the neighborhood/surviving businesses below, so you're basically giving them a highway running overhead with limited to no access anyway.
Using a flyover is an enormous undertaking that doesn't really address the underlying problems that require their construction in the developing world. Applying that fix to Chicago's problem would be like a doctor treating a bad case of the flu with chemo.
For these reasons (and others) Daley and regional transit groups didn't put any flyover/grade/recessed expressway option on the table when reviewing transit possibilities for the site (referred to as the Mid-City Transitway Plan). Their scenarios included:
-light/heavy rail transit on the corridor
-BRT transit on the corridor
-BRT or rail with 1 lane of tolled truck traffic each way...or in the case of BRT (1 lane truck + 1 lane shared BRT/Truck each way). Tolled truck angle was caveated with "if there's room" to sell the idea as a downtown truck congestion reliever for the public. The "if there's room" caveat should probably tell you one thing: there isn't room.
Why is putting only BRT (no truck tolls) such an awesome idea here?
-no ROW/easement issues
-BRT exlusive course = fast travel. Over the entire 22 mile course (from new Red Line Stop @ 75th all the way to Blue Line at Montrose, you should be able to average 25-30mph, stops included, at key connectors along the way. It's as fast (or faster) than rail. The turnstyles and platforms even look like rail. You can't tell the difference except the tires on the vehicles and lack of rails. You can run it cheaply with buses pulling up to stations every 5 to 10 minutes just like rush hour rail.
-connectivity. This would connect mid-city workers to the following: 9 of the 11 Metra spokes. It would also connect to the following L lines in order: Red/93rd, Orange, Pink, Blue/Forest Park, Green/Harlem+Lake, Blue/O'Hare. You're also getting connections at Midway and O'Hare (via Blue Line) + the Dan Ryan, Stevenson, Ike, and Kennedy if you want for PACE. All of this in a corridor without connectivity that has relatively inexpensive land ripe for investment occupied by workers who need transit.
-cost. How much would you be willing to pay for this? Comparisons: @ grade or recessed crosstown~2.0 to 3.5 billion. Crosstown elevated/flyover~4.5 to 6.0 billion (yes, it would be substantially more than @ grade/recessed for a top of the line flyover). The other mass transit connector idea, the Circle Line. Phase II was going to run over a billion and the final phase probably would have been close to 2.5-3 billion more.
The entire BRT, connecting to roughly 17-18 separate key points of METRA/highway/L transit, and providing access to both airports plus maybe a couple industrial complexes along the way, built to top of the line specs of those that have delivered tremendously in Europe would run no more than $1.5 billion.
That would be for the fancy, shiny version, mind you.
In terms of economic development, worker mobility/connectivity, and neighborhood revitalization, this is the best use of money, bar none, for any form of transportation in Chicagoland. This is why it has been at the top of the 2020, 2030, and 2040 transit plan concepts. When you factor in bang for the buck, it's so much better than anything else, it's pathetic it doesn't exist.
The three reasons it hasn't moved from concept to full plan and implementation are 1) transit (and the state/city/fed) are broke 2) the Circle Line line was sexier when there was some expectation of money and 3) highways are easier to fix because they have massive built-in revenue sources (gas tax+tolling).
I don't care about the reasons above. It's still pathetic it doesn't exist.
You're talking about two different things in successive sentences. Jobs per employable head (or jobs/employable head) are greater in the city. Look at the link I posted later in the thread. The city has roughly 1/3 of the jobs in the IL metro, but less than 1/3 of the population in the IL portion of the metro. This means there is net inbond migration into the city for jobs every day. How you can even attempt to debate this is beyond me.
You've inserted so many strawmen and words into my mouth here, it doesn't even resemble what I said earlier. Earlier this decade, we didn't have sustained periods (meaning several successive years) of $4+ gasoline. Simple economics: the higher gas goes (and the longer it stays there), the more people are going to feel the pinch in their budgets and something will need to give. Living closer to your center of employment, whether those jobs are in the suburbs, the city, or wherever is one obvious outcome. Increased Metra ridership is another. Six months of gas at $4 gas 9 years ago followed by a few years in the $1.50-$2 range isn't going to change the behavior of many, but sustained high prices will. And those effects are exponential. At $2/gal, maybe 2 in 10 change their living preference/habits, at $4/gal, maybe its 10, at $6/gal, it might by 30, and so on. I said nothing about flocking or even going solely back to the city, specifically.
You're not going to see 20% of the housing market sitting abandoned overnight in the suburbs due to gas prices, because that's not how housing markets work. The transport cost will get factored into the price of houses on the outskirts of the market and their values will drop relative to more centrally located areas. This will continue to suck people into low density housing on the periphery, but over time, it will be less desirable. Hell, we've already seen this in some areas of the region, and we also have seen areas full of 1960s and 1970s housing near employment hubs torn down as employment proximity becomes more valuable to make room for larger homes...look at older section of Naperville. Or you could look at what's happened to housing prices in the last 5 years near central employment zones vs. comparable residences in the outer suburbs/those away from major employment centers. I'll save you the trouble: the former have held their value better because demand has shifted to those.
Again, something we already have evidence of.
So wait -- are we talking about population shifts or housing prices? You seem to be conflating the two when in fact they will tend to act as an offset to each other that would slow down this fantasized-about population shift to the city as gas prices increase (or sustainably stabilize or whatever the hell). How does making room for larger homes increase population?
By the way, I don't know what home values have done in "the older section of Naperville" in the last 5 years, but in Naperville as a whole has dropped about $100,000, or nearly 1/3rd. So they don't seem to be faring any better than the outer suburbs or anywhere else around here for that matter.
From an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal from earlier this year:
"A larger-than-expected exodus over the past 10 years reduced the population of Chicago to a level not seen in nearly a century. The U.S. Census Bureau reported Tuesday that during the decade ended in 2010, Chicago's population fell 6.9% to 2,695,598 people, fewer than the 2.7 million reported back in 1920." Chicago Population Sinks to 1920 Level - WSJ.com
The article goes on to note that Chicago's population peaked at 3.62 million people in 1950. In other words, there used to be a third more people living in the city. I realize that desirable neighborhoods are still fully populated (true?), but large swaths of the other Chicago now look like Detroit, where not even illegal aliens dare try to settle, even though there is plenty of physical space for them.
Is this population decline good for Chicago? Was a population of 3.6 million too many? Is 2.7 million too few? What's the optimal population for a city Chicago's physical size?
LoL! Why would the Chi be underpopulated? Its as big as its going to get. We already have too many people in America its self. Too many characters who didnt even grow up here(thats one thing i hate is people who live in a city but dont know nothing or where anythings at!). Chicago has all the people and culture it needs. Our cities pop is just right.
I would really be curious to what the cities real population is these days.
In a lot of opinions the city was undercounted
On the flip side a lot of people I have spoken to have moved either to nearby burbs or south like atlanta
Does anyone even begin to know what the illegal immigration stats would be for Chicago
Obviously every city has an undercount in that area but Chicago houses alot of immigrants
seems to be a resurgance of businesses relocating back to the core of the city and this is an a recession one would speculate once this storm is over the population will tick up
I would really be curious to what the cities real population is these days.
In a lot of opinions the city was undercounted
On the flip side a lot of people I have spoken to have moved either to nearby burbs or south like atlanta
Does anyone even begin to know what the illegal immigration stats would be for Chicago
Obviously every city has an undercount in that area but Chicago houses alot of immigrants
seems to be a resurgance of businesses relocating back to the core of the city and this is an a recession one would speculate once this storm is over the population will tick up
While I don't doubt the city lost some population, I'm skeptical that it lost 200,000-plus. I don't think it's an illegal immigrant issue though because the recorded losses happened mostly in distressed black neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it's not difficult to believe those neighborhoods are continuing to empty out.
Yeah I certainly agree with your comments on top of everything else alot of areas were hit pretty hard even from a statistical point of view due to the sub prime mortgage collapse. Predatory lending was rather rampant.
where else can you go but spill into the burbs or move south?
still curious as to the illegal pop figs for the chicago metro - stands to reason the city has always been a magnet for immigrants - pols, latino etc. eastern european countries makes me wonder just who was not counted
Yeah I certainly agree with your comments on top of everything else alot of areas were hit pretty hard even from a statistical point of view due to the sub prime mortgage collapse. Predatory lending was rather rampant.
where else can you go but spill into the burbs or move south?
still curious as to the illegal pop figs for the chicago metro - stands to reason the city has always been a magnet for immigrants - pols, latino etc. eastern european countries makes me wonder just who was not counted
I worked for the census and we did everything we could to count everyone. While of course not everyone mailed their form in we would go door to door to get the count for the unit. If the residents of the unit were unable to be contacted or were uncooperative we would track down neighbors and landlords to get the information. Now I suppose some people may have lied about how many actually lived in the unit and some illegal basement units may have flown under the radar I doubt it was all that huge of a number.
North Lawndale and Garfield Park for instance. Look at Bing Maps birdseye views of those neighborhoods and you'll see lots of praries where there once was housing. Not as bad as Detroit but quite disconcerting to old time West Siders.
I grew up in some rough areas, and the hood has ALWAYS looked like that regardless of how big the population of the total city was at that time. Vacant lots, boarded up houses etc. And when I go through those areas it's actually the same as how I grew up, I dont feel a population decrease. The vibrant streets and corners in the hoods of Chicago are still vibrant. People who dont go through these areas tend to preceive them as if everyone is emptying out which isnt true. The hood is the same as always, it's just that the city destroyed hundreds of housing project buildings because the lazy ass Chicago Public Housing Authority who mismanaged those projects for years decided it was time to destroy the mess they created instead of fixing the mess they created.
That's why **** is down, it's not because everyday black people are leaving in crazy numbers just for no reason. Yes black people have left the city but these media outlets make it seem like blacks left by choice. Blacks love Chicago, I know alot of people who swear they'll never leave Chicago. But when you destroy the second largest Public Housing Authority in the entire United States, dont look around at the hood and blame them for a decrease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something tells me you're under the impression that Chicago is majority black? Not even close.
