Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline? (Lincoln: mortgages, houses)

[Alacran]

Dementor = Pwnd

[OyCrumbler]

Didn't nearly every major city in the Midwest and the Northeast go through major decline?

Philly just now turned the bend and posted its first year on year positive growth (or was that last year). DC is still at a quarter off from its peak population. I think Chicago is doing about middle of the pack when it comes to rebounds--loss has been stemmed more or less and it's likely to start growing.

[18Montclair]

Here's a growth map for 2000-2010 from the NY Times:

As you can see, Downtown Chicago grew by leaps and bounds, some areas growing by up to 300% That's astonishingly impressive.


On the other hand, the issue of inner ring suburban areas within major cities losing population appears to be national trend as evidenced by looking at similar maps of Houston, Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta. Chicago happened to have a larger such exodus but nearly every major city I looked at had similar losses in similar middle to lower middle class neighborhoods.

[18Montclair]

One might say that in a stange twist of fate, based on the kinds of housing being snatched up and the kinds of people doing the snatching(LOL), Downtowns are rapidly morphing into the new destination of choice of the wealthy, trendy elite--something that would have been considered laughable just 3 decades ago.

The poor unfortunately don't seem to have a place in this new downtown reality and neither do middle class families. Developers focus on wealthy singles and wealthy childless couples. And so families and lower income folks move to suburbia or out of town.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by grozny101

Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline?

Considering which parts of Chicago lost population versus which parts gained... no.

Welcome back (again), dementor.

[grozny101]

Originally Posted by chikid

Uh ok. I'll provide you proof, when you provide me proof that population loss = city decline.

That's pretty obvious, population gain = city growth, population loss = decline. 50 years of loss means long term negative trend.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Many areas of the city prospering
Just walking thru lincoln park last week and it sure did not seem like declining area to me

in addition the loop is showing good signs of recovery with jobs relocating back to the core

give it some time we are in a depression as a country
as a whole the metro area shows absolutley no signs of population declines , just shifts.

a lot of friends , co workers and people i talk to all talk about wanting to get closer to the city or actually in the city me included and just waiting till we can sell our homes in the burbs

nothing is constant everything is a forever change including the nation as a whole

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by grozny101

Chicago. Isn't the loss of population, especially when compared to other big American cities, a clear sign of decline?

Per the US Census 2010 data between 1950 and 2010 Chicago lost almost a million of residents, a whopping 25% of it's population while the other big cities, both NYC and LA considerably grew and were never as densely populated and populous as today. Isn't that a sign that Chicago is showing signs of decline? What do you think and why? Please use some verifiable data to support your opinions on the subject. Thank you.

Data:

Chicago
Historical populations
Census Pop. %±
1840 4,470
—
1850 29,963 570.3%
1860 112,172 274.4%
1870 298,977 166.5%
1880 503,185 68.3%
1890 1,099,850 118.6%
1900 1,698,575 54.4%
1910 2,185,283 28.7%
1920 2,701,705 23.6%
1930 3,376,438 25.0%
1940 3,396,808 0.6%
1950 3,620,962 6.6%
1960 3,550,404 −1.9%
1970 3,366,957 −5.2%
1980 3,005,072 −10.7%
1990 2,783,726 −7.4%
2000 2,896,016 4.0%
2010 2,695,598 −6.9%


New York City:
Historical populations
Year Pop. *%±
1698 4,937 —
1712 5,840 18.3%
1723 7,248 24.1%
1737 10,664 47.1%
1746 11,717 9.9%
1756 13,046 11.3%
1771 21,863 67.6%
1790 33,131 51.5%
1800 60,515 82.7%
1810 96,373 59.3%
1820 123,706 28.4%
1830 202,589 63.8%
1840 312,710 54.4%
1850 515,547 64.9%
1860 813,669 57.8%
1870 942,292 15.8%
1880 1,206,299 28.0%
1890 1,515,301 25.6%
1900 3,437,202 126.8%
1910 4,766,883 38.7%
1920 5,620,048 17.9%
1930 6,930,446 23.3%
1940 7,454,995 7.6%
1950 7,891,957 5.9%
1960 7,781,984 −1.4%
1970 7,894,862 1.5%
1980 7,071,639 −10.4%
1990 7,322,564 3.5%
2000 8,008,288 9.4%
2010 8,175,133 2.1%

LA:
Historical populations
Year Pop. *%±
1850 1,610 —
1860 4,385 172.4%
1870 5,728 30.6%
1880 11,183 95.2%
1890 50,395 350.6%
1900 102,479 103.4%
1910 319,198 211.5%
1920 576,673 80.7%
1930 1,238,048 114.7%
1940 1,504,277 21.5%
1950 1,970,358 31.0%
1960 2,479,015 25.8%
1970 2,816,061 13.6%
1980 2,966,850 5.4%
1990 3,485,398 17.5%
2000 3,694,820 6.0%
2010 3,792,621 2.6%

Why dont you show stats as a whole show the collar counties and how they absorbed what you show as a loss in chicago.
a less congested chicago would not be a bad thing in my opinion

[grozny101]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Here's a growth map for 2000-2010 from the NY Times:

As you can see, Downtown Chicago grew by leaps and bounds, some areas growing by up to 300% That's astonishingly impressive.


On the other hand, the issue of inner ring suburban areas within major cities losing population appears to be national trend as evidenced by looking at similar maps of Houston, Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta. Chicago happened to have a larger such exodus but nearly every major city I looked at had similar losses in similar middle to lower middle class neighborhoods.

Yes, due to population loss and surplus of housing Downtown Chicago is more affordable now, syphoning population from other areas of the city. Remember however that according to Census data we aren't talking about a single decade but rather 50 years during which Chicago lost 25% of population or 1 million residents. Population determines everything, from federal funding to city's tax revenue.

On the metro growth combined with city decline, if, NYC lost 25% of population while Jersey City and White Plains gained 5 million each would you still be cheering NYC for growth just because it's metro grows? I don't think so.

[chikid]

Originally Posted by grozny101

That's pretty obvious, population gain = city growth, population loss = decline. 50 years of loss means long term negative trend.

How is it obvious? Please, as you say, show data that supports this.