Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-14-2011, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,763,571 times
Reputation: 5869

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
But you need to stick to the subject. The subject is the growth of population *in Chicago*. No one asked about the population of the globe at large, so why are you bringing it up? It's irrelevant.
i disagree. i don't think it is irrelevant. Chicago doesn't live in a vacuum. It doesn't matter if we're talking about part or whole:

it doesn't work for the planet

it doesn't work for Chicago

IMHO this is something that will be painfully evident in a future much closer than most people think.

And Chicago and Chicagoland will not benefit from an increase of population.

I've been through this with you a number of times, emathias. but since you continue to assess my posts and tell me how inappropriate they are, I need to add (once more, ad nassium):

1. I write for myself because I like to express myself

2. I write for others who wish to read what I write

3. I have no problem with you or others who do not wish to read my posts to ignore them.

4. It is not your job to serve as traffic cop on this or other threads.

5. I have yet to read any thread on any forum that sticks to topic. The nature of communication and of internet forums is that threads charge and morph. I don't find any thread topic "sacred"; indeed I've never felt that anyone owes anything to me on a thread I started to keep it where I started it.

6. and finally: why on earth am I even bothering to respond to you when you are talking on this and previous posts more about what you think of me than you do about the points I raise.

have a good day, emathias, and rest assure that if a problem comes up with how I post that lincix chooses to identify, given his capacity and role on this subforum, I will happily work with him to rectify it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2011, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Chicago
422 posts, read 808,369 times
Reputation: 422
Chicago's population in 2010 was 2,695,598 and I would like us to surpass our 1950 peak of 3,620,962 someday. We are 925,364 people below our population peak, someone mentioned Chicago being able to hold 5 million people well I think surpassing the historic peak is a more realistic goal. In order to do that we have to do with what others have said about encouraging density and public transit, that afterall is what the city was in 1950. The problem is we need more alderman who have the political courage to do this and not cowtow to NIMBY's that want city living to be suburban lite. I think density is also the key to the public school problems, a bigger tax base and greater population will make the schools better. Really we need to model what New York City did as much as possible, they had a substantial population loss in the 1970's and yet by the 2000 census they had surpassed their historic peak population, something for us not just to envy but emulate. The crime is going down and the core areas of Chicago are growing, we just need a way to spread this prosperity further out and densify or rather redensify areas that are bombed out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago
4,688 posts, read 10,064,870 times
Reputation: 3202
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
1) Streamline the process of getting permits and doing other kinds of business with the city. For some things, that means just getting the city out of the process. For other things it may result in stronger regulation, but more clear, easier to understand and work with regulations.

The complexity and slowness of dealing with the city is a huge disadvantage for businesses of all sizes. It takes most businesses a really long time to get permits to do things if they aren't part of a big corporation with lawyers to handle it all.

2) Do a better job of describing the education available in a Chicago Public School. Yes, the schools should be better. However, many kids still get an excellent education, much better than the statistical averages would have you believe. The City needs to figure out how to advertise that fact, and reach out to parents about how to make sure their kids get that good education in the City.

3) As part of item 1), the City needs to come to accept that in order to be a city it needs to let itself look and function like a city. No more allowing gas stations on the same block as an "L" station. No more allowing an Alderman to block a 6-story building 1 block from an "L" station because he personally thinks it's too dense. What am I talking about? TOD - Transit Oriented Development doesn't just need to be a part of our zoning, it needs to be the *focus* of our zoning. People shouldn't move into the densest parts of the city and expect it to be like the suburbs. The suburbs do offer some advantages over the city, but the City still has many advantages that the suburbs can't offer. By not emphasizing and requiring TOD standards, the City is destroying some of it's best assets and increasing the costs for everyone because we already have infrastructure designed for dense living, so if we only build low-to-mid-density, we don't have the tax structure to pay for the existing things. This drives up taxes and discourages people from moving in.

4) At the State level, fund UIC more in line with UIUC. UIC serves 70% as many students as UIUC, and is a more expensive location, yet has an endowment only 20% the size of UIUC. Chicago is Illinois' portal to the world, and the state University here should better reflect that.

5) Continue to encourage a local film industry. There is really nothing better in the modern world for free advertising that comes with a thriving motion picture industry. Vancouver and Toronto benefit a lot from being in movies.

6) Push Congress to vastly improve the current immigration process. We as a nation are simply being stupid when it comes to immigration. Most other advanced countries use a simple points system that anyone can look up and figure out. The process here is just archaic and it hurts not only Chicago, but almost all cities in the U.S. Even though immigrants are moving directly to suburbs more often than they used to, cities are still giant assimilation factories and can't do that well when there isn't a stream of immigrants. This would allow us to reach out and target regions of the world that won't be scared away from Chicago's weather, like north China, Russia, Scandinavia, and Chicago's historic strength, central and eastern Europe to encourage growing companies there to open their North American headquarters here, or young entrepreneurs to move here to start their businesses.
You're good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2011, 06:43 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,763,571 times
Reputation: 5869
the idea of funding UIC more along the lines of UIUC makes a lot of sense.

Illinois is the largest state in the middle west, yet it only has one flagship institution, the U of I. But since Champaign is only one school, it hardly has enough "slots" for all the qualified students from the state who want to go there. These students end up at a school like Madison, which is in every respect Illinois's peer (the only reason they can get in is because of the smaller population of Wisconsin puts less pressure on UW), but they do without reciprocity and thus pay out-of-state tuition.

Our neighboring states, smaller than Illinois, often have two public flagship institutions (Indiana with IU and Purdue, Iowa with UIowa and Ia St, and Michigan with U-M and MSU).

Wouldn't it be wise to make UIC the state's second flagship? Both institution and city would greatly benefit from this as LA does from UCLA.

In some respects, the two top tier UC's....Cal and UCLA....serve as California's flagships. Couldn't Illinois do something similar with two UI schools....UIUC and UIC?

And location wise, there really couldn't be a second flagship other than UIC, based on the concentration of population in metro Chicago. SIU, ISU, and even relatively close by NIU couldn't fit the bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2011, 05:22 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,763,571 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
But you need to stick to the subject. The subject is the growth of population *in Chicago*. No one asked about the population of the globe at large, so why are you bringing it up? It's irrelevant.
emathias, i was thinking about what you said and I'd like to readdress it. to you, and your opinion, of course, but to anyone else still reading on this thread.

the points I raised were not philosophical, but IMHO, dealt with practicality and, yes, reality. That they were generic and not Chicago specific is the real irrelevancy because if we talk about Chicago, we need to talk in real terms, with no regard that the issues raised are true of every single spot on the earth.

If we continue to have conversations about "population growth" and "economic growth", we are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and, in fact, making our situation worse.

We play a fiction as the underpinnings of our society and way of life give way, often silently to us as we cannot or choose not to see.

In the best of all worlds, it might be nice to know that population can grow, create new markets and we will have the goods and services and quality of life we desire.

Problem is, the rules of nature work against that. And nature rules.

We are not different from any other peoples throughout history. But we do live in different times. And what time that has done like no other is to push us to the brink, for the first time in human history, where our technologies and our population and the very philosophy of endless supply for endless demand have put us to the point of utter unsustainability.

I saw in your list of things Chicago needs to do a great plan to follow, well thought out, a formula that could lead to success. But it won't. Not because of man, but because of nature. Because we're hitting a brick wall that mankind has created for itself in its relationship with nature. Around the world. And here in Chicago.

Can the good things happen in and for Chicago in a world where climate change is no longer "in the future" but happens in real time? Can it happen at a time when China and India (among others) now are in the process of using resources, resources declining in number, at a rate that more developed nations like the US have for years? Can we work towards the good life in Chicago when we have already killed off a great percentage of sea life in our oceans and a garbage spill twice the size of Texas floats in the Pacific? How about the BP spill....do you think it still is out there, doing its incideous damage to an interconnected world to which Chicago is a part? And how many other industrial spills are there in the once called "third world" that add new problems every day?

Jobs shift from Chicago and America to China. We are told for cheap labor. But that's only a part of the lowered cost. Another and arguably bigger part is externalities. When you ship your factory to China, there are few if any environmental restraints or costs you have to face. But the mess there comes here: it's one world.

If you had tuned in to a forum like this 5 years ago, you would have found a vastly different place. Sure the problems that we so critically face and threaten our quality of life and even our existence were still silently and noticeably (if we chose to look) doing their dastardly deed, but the s**t had yet to hit the fan and there was enough of appearance of "the good life" to make that our reality (even as we ignored the growing poverty all around us, especially in many areas of the nation we would never see or think about).

It was a time when as many 100 story plus buildings could be built in Chicago, where condos could have 10,000 sf and only a NIMY would stand in the way of wall-to-wall skyscrapers. If we dream it, it could be built. But it was pure fantasyland. And what we are seeing today in what is arguably far more depression than recession is part of a whole wave of global evidence that what we are doing as the human race doesn't work and can no longer be sustained.

And there is no way that concept can be avoided when we discuss Chicago and its future, even though it is generic. But it's generic in an interconnected world.

So, emathias, how do you see it: do you see population growth in Chicago as a goal when every major city in the world is already too overpopulated for its and the planet's good? Do you see endless economic growth as a good thing? Are growing markets something we want to encourage? Does your reality tell you that mankind can overcome any problem it faces, that we will always find solutions, that we can change whatever we do to mother Earth and mother Chicago and make it all better again?

and ultimately, as so much of what we do depends on "endless growth", can you think of anything other than cancer and what the human race is doing that functions with "endless growth"?

Can we have any serious discussion of Chicago's future without bringing up all these issues and putting them at the front of the table?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2011, 09:58 AM
 
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
4,620 posts, read 8,118,849 times
Reputation: 6321
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
...
it doesn't work for the planet

it doesn't work for Chicago
...
This is an oversimplification. There are all sorts of local and even individual actions that wouldn't be sustainably if everyone and every place globally did them but that doesn't mean that that locality or that individual can't continue to do them indefinitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
...
1. I write for myself because I like to express myself
2. I write for others who wish to read what I write
3. I have no problem with you or others who do not wish to read my posts to ignore them.
4. It is not your job to serve as traffic cop on this or other threads.
5. I have yet to read any thread on any forum that sticks to topic. The nature of communication and of internet forums is that threads charge and morph. I don't find any thread topic "sacred"; indeed I've never felt that anyone owes anything to me on a thread I started to keep it where I started it.
6. and finally: why on earth am I even bothering to respond to you when you are talking on this and previous posts more about what you think of me than you do about the points I raise.
have a good day, emathias, and rest assure that if a problem comes up with how I post that lincix chooses to identify, given his capacity and role on this subforum, I will happily work with him to rectify it.
1) This is a discussion forum. If you wish to write only for yourself, I suggest you start a blog. Or a diary.

2) When did I say I didn't wish to read what you write? I just wish that what you write would be closer to topic sometimes.

3) What would be the point of being on a discussion forum if I were ignoring everything?

4) LOL - it's not your job to write here, but you do it anyway. I'm not acting to police your comments, I'm pointing out logical inconsistencies in what you write, I'm pointing out where claims you make about the world are flawed, and in return you're simply whining that by me doing so I'm attacking you personally - which is not what I'm doing. None of what I've written in response to your posts has been personal in nature. Calling an argument illogical is a an empirical claim, it's not a subjective evaluation of the person making the argument. Claiming that I've attacked you personally instead of offering up a defense of your claims does nothing to make me think I'm wrong or that your dramatic claims that this depression is a sign of the end of the world are in any way supported by facts.

5) ...

6) Yes, I'm sure nothing I've said has bothered you in the least, which is why you've posted no fewer than three responses about things I've said here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
the idea of funding UIC more along the lines of UIUC makes a lot of sense.
...
And location wise, there really couldn't be a second flagship other than UIC, based on the concentration of population in metro Chicago. SIU, ISU, and even relatively close by NIU couldn't fit the bill.
See, we can agree on some things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
emathias, i was thinking about what you said and I'd like to readdress it.
...
If we continue to have conversations about "population growth" and "economic growth", we are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and, in fact, making our situation worse.
You comparison to an "unsinkable" ship is a little tenuous. If you believe we are on a global version of the Titanic, then a direct inference is that you believe we are on an unstoppable sinking trajectory because that is what the Titanic was doing. It was sinking with there being nothing anyone could do to stop it. If that is indeed where we are globally (and I think that we are not sinking unstoppably), then you're right. Anything we do is simply re-arranging chairs. But, if we're past the point of no return anyway, why not enjoy ourselves until the end? I mean, if you were on the Titanic and knew you wouldn't make it to a lifeboat, would you really avoid trying out that 100-year-old Scotch at the bar (or whatever other end-of-life vice you might have)?

Because you're arguing for temperance, I'm guessing you don't actually believe we're past the point of no return. Which means your Titanic comparison isn't directly comparable. A more apt comparison would be sailors on a smaller vessel, one that's being buffeted by a gale. In that comparison, sometimes it's necessary to make some or all of the passengers move from one side of the boat to the other - to "re-arrange their chairs" if you will. Sometimes simply re-arranging your seating is exactly what's necessary to survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
...
I saw in your list of things Chicago needs to do a great plan to follow, well thought out, a formula that could lead to success. But it won't. Not because of man, but because of nature. Because we're hitting a brick wall that mankind has created for itself in its relationship with nature. Around the world. And here in Chicago.
No one rational (including myself) will claim that Mankind can grow forever on Earth. No one rational (including myself) will claim that anytime in the foreseeable future we'll have any other planet to which to move. So, yes, at some point growth will stop or change to cycle backward for some period of time.

The primary differences between what I'm saying and what you're saying are two-fold.

First, timing. You seem to believe that massive changes, forced by nature, are imminent - even already occurring. You implied that the current global recession/depression is a sign of the collapse of life as we know it. I simply disagree. This is the worst recession we've had in the West in at least two generations, but it's far from the worst we've ever seen. It's not even as bad as the Great Depression by nearly any measure, an event many living people still vividly remember. While I think we need to be planning alternatives, I don't think recent events are a sign of the end.

Second, you've repeatedly tied the success or failure of Chicago to the state of the world at large. I don't know what *will* happen, but I do know that even the collapse of the rest of the world wouldn't necessitate the collapse of Chicago. Certainly a collapse of global shipping would dramatically change Chicago. But we're in the middle of the most productive agricultural land in the world, in a region with the most fresh water in the world. Even if globalism fails Chicago can survive and even grow as a regional capital. Russia is failing, but Moscow is one of the fastest-growing big cities in the world - and Moscow has a fraction of the geographic advantages Chicago enjoys. Even during a collapse or an organization, there are sections that survive - even thrive - on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
...
So, emathias, how do you see it: do you see population growth in Chicago as a goal when every major city in the world is already too overpopulated for its and the planet's good? Do you see endless economic growth as a good thing? Are growing markets something we want to encourage? Does your reality tell you that mankind can overcome any problem it faces, that we will always find solutions, that we can change whatever we do to mother Earth and mother Chicago and make it all better again?

and ultimately, as so much of what we do depends on "endless growth", can you think of anything other than cancer and what the human race is doing that functions with "endless growth"?
You talk about growth as though growth on its own were evil. As if I were defending universal growth, which isn't something I've done. In fact in every single response to you I've pointed out that while the world is interconnected, some parts grow even as other parts shrink, a point you've ignored in all your responses (why you've ignored that, I really have no idea).

A more accurate assessment of my own view isn't that the world can always grow, but that the world will always change. There will always be winners and losers. For Chicago specifically, we have natural, geographic advantages many places do not that provide a backstop to catastrophic global failure. Since we have that advantage, I see it almost as a duty to provide a healthy city here, one that can share those natural advantages with as many people as possible. But that's a very long-term view.

My response to this topic is for a shorter-term goal. Something I might see the fruit of in my lifetime. Regardless of what happens in the rest of the world, I think Chicago is capable of growing in population and in quality of life. The economy as measured by global standards may change, even contract dramatically in a worst-case scenario, but that wouldn't necessitate a loss of what makes the City function. In fact, the potential efficiencies of a city would become even more apparent during a dramatic economic contraction. Rail would become dominant again. Water-based shipping would become more important. Being walkable would become more important. These man-made advantages are things Chicago either already has or has within its power to do today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
Can we have any serious discussion of Chicago's future without bringing up all these issues and putting them at the front of the table?
Yes, just like you can discuss brushing your teeth without bringing up heart disease, despite the fact there are well-established connections between the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2011, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,763,571 times
Reputation: 5869
emathias, that's obviously a bit much for even me to cover.

i don't have a crystal ball to the future. and i fully understand that there is a wide range of opinions about what are the ramifications of population and use of resources.

but it's 2011 (almost 12) and the science of measurement has gotten better and better just as the effect we have on our enivornment gets worse and worse.

thus, i think it is safe to say that many intelligent people (1) have serious questions about sustainability and (2) believe we do face catastrophic problems, far sooner than many anticipate, that are completely alien to our experiences and frankly not something we want to talk about.

yes, I agree with you, that a blog is a better place for much of the discussion I've offered. but please look at the flip side:

from my perspective (and again that perspective has grown greatly) much of discussions about population growth and growing markets makes no sense and that the real issues that affect Chicago's future don't even come up in these sorts of discussions with a strange belief that we can continue as we have been doing.

let's not think in terms of who's right and who's wrong. There are intelligent people like you who think that my concerns are false, but also people who have good reason to see a disaster coming up.....and that population and the necessity of an ever growing economy are parts of the disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2011, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Wicker Park/East Village area
2,474 posts, read 4,138,895 times
Reputation: 1939
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
i think it is safe to say that many intelligent people (1) have serious questions about sustainability and (2) believe we do face catastrophic problems, far sooner than many anticipate, that are completely alien to our experiences and frankly not something we want to talk about.
Huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2011, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 8,831,424 times
Reputation: 2459
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
So, while I agree that bigger is not always better, Chicago is set up to be a city with a density of about 2 times what it currently averages, a density that is a comfortable, efficient level of population for this city. There's no reason that a population that results in that density shouldn't be the target.
This strikes me as an over generalization. Chicago never had 5.6 million people.

*Parts* of Chicago are clearly underdeveloped and could use more people/housing, but allowing developers to profit from public transit infrastructure by just throwing up dense properties by already-taxed existing public trans rail stations is NOT the solution.

Have you been on the Red or Blue lines recently? They are often past capacity during rush hour by the time you get to Belmont going to the Loop, and by Fullerton they're at max.

And it's not like there's less traffic in these areas...

First thing that needs to happen is we need to figure out a way to unhitch ourselves from the ridiculous bottleneck that is the Loop.

There's no reason why everything in the City needs to be shoehorned through downtown, none.

A Circle Line that truly connects the more spread-out parts of the City are what we need. Not a line at Ashland, but a line at like, Pulaski. Or further.

Build the infrastructure, and the people will come. But keep in mind that people still ultimately are driven by getting to and from work. And not everyone works in the Loop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2011, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,763,571 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
This strikes me as an over generalization. Chicago never had 5.6 million people.

*Parts* of Chicago are clearly underdeveloped and could use more people/housing, but allowing developers to profit from public transit infrastructure by just throwing up dense properties by already-taxed existing public trans rail stations is NOT the solution.

Have you been on the Red or Blue lines recently? They are often past capacity during rush hour by the time you get to Belmont going to the Loop, and by Fullerton they're at max.

And it's not like there's less traffic in these areas...

First thing that needs to happen is we need to figure out a way to unhitch ourselves from the ridiculous bottleneck that is the Loop.

There's no reason why everything in the City needs to be shoehorned through downtown, none.

A Circle Line that truly connects the more spread-out parts of the City are what we need. Not a line at Ashland, but a line at like, Pulaski. Or further.

Build the infrastructure, and the people will come. But keep in mind that people still ultimately are driven by getting to and from work. And not everyone works in the Loop.

I'm not sure if it is for the same reason or not, but when I read "So, while I agree that bigger is not always better, Chicago is set up to be a city with a density of about 2 times what it currently averages, a density that is a comfortable, efficient level of population for this city." I go, "huh?"

I'm not sure how we can be "set up to be a city with density of about times what its current average is" or how this density would be "comfortable".

Perhaps I take a topic like "What does the city of chicago need to do in order to grow" more literally than other people do. When I read it, I have to wonder first how Chicago has a "need". Chicago is nothing more than a political entity. It has little meaning other than collecting garbage, cleaning streets, and operating schools. Chicago doesn't matter; Chicagoland does. Chicagoland is real and organic, something artificial. It shows how meaningless Howard Street is when it separates Chicago from Evanston or Austin Blvd when it divides Chicago from Oak Park.

How meaningless is Chicago's density? Cities like New York have virtual suburban areas within its city limits in outer Queens and Staten Island and LA has endless suburban areas within city limits. So what?

What exactly makes us more comfortable or better off with a larger population. If Chicago's population is a little under a 3 million and Chicagoland's is around 10 million, I would like to know what others, like emathias, would think are better numbers. We've never had more than 10 million people here as Chicagoland has never been bigger; and generally speaking all metro areas follow a pattern where growth tends to disapate to the periphery as the core loses ground.

If for all but an infantesimal part of human history has found us living in cities that were even a million in size, why suddenly (for it is suddenly) are our current numbers, in the millions on steroid. does it make sense? are we really able to be "more comfortable" with twice our current density when, in many respects, our real comfort is long gone when we started to live in places that become so large and impersonal that there is no sense of community.

And can we continue to use the resources we use to make things happen in these overpopulated settings.

Again, you have to ask yourself where you paradigms are. And for me, seeing Chicago in context of the nation in which we are living and the world itself, I can't help but feeling that so many of the things we think we so pragmatically want to see happen for our city are not even capable in the world we have created for ourselves.

We're in late stage almost canabilistic capitalism and our underpinnings are totally not there. I can't deal with that as being something that has no place in our discussions of the city because I think those discussions happen in vacuum, that they are based on how we have seen our past and have little relevancy today as we face a different world, maybe more fundamentally different than what we see as change; this one is a seismic shift.

And I don't think that shift has the ability to be encouraging to either population growth or to an economic system that depends on endless markets, endless supply for endless demands.

Our basic premises are flawed (IMHO) and without recognizing the flaws and limitations, no discussion we have has any real degree of relevancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top