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.
Grow!? It's the 3rd largest city in the US!
Grow bigger? Done
Growth in other ways, I've only lived here for 1 week. I've only heard positive things about this area. Schools have to be top priority. But, that's with EVERY city, I actually thing the public schools are not too bad in the 'burbs.
But with any large, old city the priority should always be keeping it from dying like buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland. Keep the blight and vacancy away. Looks go a long way in the quality of life in a big city. Keeping night life and family & children's attractions. I think Chicago is doing good. But, I've only lived here a week. I've visited the city numerous times on vacations and business. So I have a familiarity.
One must keep in mind that demolition of slum housing and projects for less dense public housing and low income housing is one of the reasons that we see such a population loss. The demographics fit.
I am by no means a Chicago expert, but the city does have room to grow. I question why, in Chicagoland, areas like Joliet, Aurora, Naperville, which are all on the fringes of the metro area, continue to grow, while neighborhoods that are 5-7 miles from downtown are abondoned or far below a comfortable level of capacity. So while, I dont think the dense northside neighborhoods need to add any more people, I think Chicagoland would benefit from seeing some growth/revitalization of many south and west side neighborhoods.
Since there was a comparison made to NYC (where I am from), I will make a comparison. The Roughest neighborhoods in Chicago seem to be less populated, with many abondoned buildings, and very few businesses, where as in New York, the rougher neighborhoods are still very vibrant and crowded and act more as a functioning neighborhood with large commercial avenues.
I am by no means a Chicago expert, but the city does have room to grow. I question why, in Chicagoland, areas like Joliet, Aurora, Naperville, which are all on the fringes of the metro area, continue to grow, while neighborhoods that are 5-7 miles from downtown are abondoned or far below a comfortable level of capacity. So while, I dont think the dense northside neighborhoods need to add any more people, I think Chicagoland would benefit from seeing some growth/revitalization of many south and west side neighborhoods.
Since there was a comparison made to NYC (where I am from), I will make a comparison. The Roughest neighborhoods in Chicago seem to be less populated, with many abondoned buildings, and very few businesses, where as in New York, the rougher neighborhoods are still very vibrant and crowded and act more as a functioning neighborhood with large commercial avenues.
Far, when you say "continue to grow", are you referring just into the 21st century or are you referring to the time since the 2008 meltdown? Seems to me major construction has almost come to a halt in the area as it has throughout so much of the nation.
When you speak of "while neighborhoods that are 5-7 miles from downtown are abondoned or far below a comfortable level of capacity." it may be a matter of timing.
Look, first we need to acknowledge that this recession we're in may well not be a recession. Folks the likes of Paul Krugman are calling it a depression. And frankly I don't have a clue of what it will look like "on the other side", only that the other side is going to be vastly, vastly different than the past.
But there are some things I do suspect: Chicagoland, like the nation, took to the road in cars after WWII and away from public transportation. When that all started, the cost of gasoline was less than 50 cents a gallon.
Today is vastly different. That great empire we built out there away from the city was laid out by the automobile. Those days are gone.
Public transportation and nearness to core jobs will have to be a priority, a necessity. And what that would mean for the vastly underdeveloped and decaying parts of the West and South sides, IMHO, will be a real spurt in housing for families, undoubtedly centered around town houses, condos, and apartments. And the socio-economic factors should be vastly different, too.
I don't see the new construction being led by life style and wealth that was responsible for the gentrifcation movement over the last 30 or so years.
I'm talking middle class housing, perhaps on some massive scales for the land is available to build large scale communities. Placement of these communities near CTA and in-city Metra stations will offer wonderful opportunities for people if they are working in the city's core: extensive and frequent rapid transit, commuter rail, and bus service as well as low costs for commutes.
Sure, it is important to provide the supportive aspects of redeveloment, to provide the right climate for that type of change to take place.
But sometimes things just happen on their own because they work. While you rightfully decry inner core decay (in city and suburb), there is also another reality that has played out (and maybe not as noticeable as other trends):
as Chicago's core and adjacent areas of the North, West, and South sides have provided an exciting life style and job opporunties, an interesting phenomenium was happening in close in suburbia. Certainly in Evanston and Oak Park, where expected, given their character and urban-suburban mix.
But also in towns where you might not expect it. In-fill construction throughout the areas that abut Chicago have produced a lot of high end real estate. I'm more familiar with the North Suburbs, and I can assure you that places like Lincolnwood, Skokie, Morton Grove, and Niles have gotten some new leads on life due to the proximity to the new Chicago.
Same thing is true on the other side of city limits. Far north side neighborhoods like Rogers Park, West Rogers Park, Albany Park, Hollywood Park, Peterson Park, Budlong Woods, etc., have benefitted from proximity to the best that Chicago now has to offer. These communities are totally out of the charm belt/lifestyle belt; their growth and development comes from proximity.
I see something even stronger that will happen on the West and South sides, again driven not by life style but on wise economic choices for a time when conservation becomes a total necessity.
Grow!? It's the 3rd largest city in the US!
Grow bigger? Done
Growth in other ways, I've only lived here for 1 week. I've only heard positive things about this area. Schools have to be top priority. But, that's with EVERY city, I actually thing the public schools are not too bad in the 'burbs.
But with any large, old city the priority should always be keeping it from dying like buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland. Keep the blight and vacancy away. Looks go a long way in the quality of life in a big city. Keeping night life and family & children's attractions. I think Chicago is doing good. But, I've only lived here a week. I've visited the city numerous times on vacations and business. So I have a familiarity.
yes, but "not too bad" is a long way removed from "good". And these schools, now critically underfunded and dealing with social issues that mirror the city's are a far cry from what they once were.
Interestingly the best high schools (and arguably elementary schools) in the metropolitan area are in Chicago, the only place that offers high powered academic institutions that require admission. Northside, Payton, and the like can accomplish so many things that New Trier, Highland Park, Hinsdale, or Stevenson cannot.
Far, when you say "continue to grow", are you referring just into the 21st century or are you referring to the time since the 2008 meltdown? Seems to me major construction has almost come to a halt in the area as it has throughout so much of the nation.
When you speak of "while neighborhoods that are 5-7 miles from downtown are abondoned or far below a comfortable level of capacity." it may be a matter of timing.
Look, first we need to acknowledge that this recession we're in may well not be a recession. Folks the likes of Paul Krugman are calling it a depression. And frankly I don't have a clue of what it will look like "on the other side", only that the other side is going to be vastly, vastly different than the past.
But there are some things I do suspect: Chicagoland, like the nation, took to the road in cars after WWII and away from public transportation. When that all started, the cost of gasoline was less than 50 cents a gallon.
Today is vastly different. That great empire we built out there away from the city was laid out by the automobile. Those days are gone.
Public transportation and nearness to core jobs will have to be a priority, a necessity. And what that would mean for the vastly underdeveloped and decaying parts of the West and South sides, IMHO, will be a real spurt in housing for families, undoubtedly centered around town houses, condos, and apartments. And the socio-economic factors should be vastly different, too.
I don't see the new construction being led by life style and wealth that was responsible for the gentrifcation movement over the last 30 or so years.
I'm talking middle class housing, perhaps on some massive scales for the land is available to build large scale communities. Placement of these communities near CTA and in-city Metra stations will offer wonderful opportunities for people if they are working in the city's core: extensive and frequent rapid transit, commuter rail, and bus service as well as low costs for commutes.
Sure, it is important to provide the supportive aspects of redeveloment, to provide the right climate for that type of change to take place.
But sometimes things just happen on their own because they work. While you rightfully decry inner core decay (in city and suburb), there is also another reality that has played out (and maybe not as noticeable as other trends):
as Chicago's core and adjacent areas of the North, West, and South sides have provided an exciting life style and job opporunties, an interesting phenomenium was happening in close in suburbia. Certainly in Evanston and Oak Park, where expected, given their character and urban-suburban mix.
But also in towns where you might not expect it. In-fill construction throughout the areas that abut Chicago have produced a lot of high end real estate. I'm more familiar with the North Suburbs, and I can assure you that places like Lincolnwood, Skokie, Morton Grove, and Niles have gotten some new leads on life due to the proximity to the new Chicago.
Same thing is true on the other side of city limits. Far north side neighborhoods like Rogers Park, West Rogers Park, Albany Park, Hollywood Park, Peterson Park, Budlong Woods, etc., have benefitted from proximity to the best that Chicago now has to offer. These communities are totally out of the charm belt/lifestyle belt; their growth and development comes from proximity.
I see something even stronger that will happen on the West and South sides, again driven not by life style but on wise economic choices for a time when conservation becomes a total necessity.
I am not familiar enough with Chicagoland to make specific comments, so I will leave that to the locals, but by "Continue to grow" I was mainly speaking in generalizations. whether or not construction has stopped in those far flung places, I dont think it really means people (Rich,Poor,Middle class, black, white, brown) are moving into sections of the South and West side. Chicago isn't Detroit (no offense to Detroit), it has arguably one of the best downtown in the country, and offers tons of ammenities for all classes, I just don't know why people continue to flee for the 'Burbs when all of this land is availbable near by. Again, probably could be answered if I knew more about the metro area.
I am not familiar enough with Chicagoland to make specific comments, so I will leave that to the locals, but by "Continue to grow" I was mainly speaking in generalizations. whether or not construction has stopped in those far flung places, I dont think it really means people (Rich,Poor,Middle class, black, white, brown) are moving into sections of the South and West side. Chicago isn't Detroit (no offense to Detroit), it has arguably one of the best downtown in the country, and offers tons of ammenities for all classes, I just don't know why people continue to flee for the 'Burbs when all of this land is availbable near by. Again, probably could be answered if I knew more about the metro area.
I agree with everything you said though.
I'd say you've described some trends that not only apply to Chicago, but to virtually every other American city as well. For all the wealth that a number of cities...like Chicago...have acquired since the era of gentrification, there is still a lot of poverty in all of them. Even small San Francisco which has literally priced out families with kids has run down, substandard neighborhoods, rooted in poverty.
A lot of what yoou sdescribe as that fleeing to burbs has been running out of gas. Literally. The car based culture of suburbia becomes less and less attractive for reasons like congested roads....but far, far more due to the expense of driving one.
You know, the real race to the suburbs began after WWII; it may have been a more limited (in time) trend than we thought. I don't think it is going to be the basis of our future....including arguably the near future.
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.
